UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANUBHAI PARMAR DIVL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the Union of India against the order dated 16th march, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (`CAT' for short) in O.A. No.28 of 1998.

(2.) The opponents No. 1 & 2 were original applicants. They were serving as Postmen in Ahmedabad General Post Office. On January 8, 1996, a decision was taken by the Postal Department to change three delivery system into two delivery system. The said decision was challenged by the applicants by filing O.A.No.905 of 1996. The application came to be dismissed by CAT inter alia observing that if the Union was aggrieved by the decision, it could approach the Head of the department for redressal. It was also observed that if such representation would fail, the Union could invoke industrial law. It appears that the postal department did not change the decision. Notice of strike was, therefore, given by the union to the Chief Post Master General on 15th December, 1997 raising demand against change of shift by Postal Department. On 12th January, 1998, the Regional Labour Commissioner addressed a letter to the Chief Post Master General inviting his attention to the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and advising him to adhere to those provisions. On 15th January, 1998, the applicants filed O.A.No.28 of 1998 inter alia praying therein that the change in the delivery system sought to be effected by the department was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the same was illegal and ultra vires. On the same day, notice was issued by making it returnable on 28th January, 1998 and ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by the Tribunal directing the department to restore the position as prevailed on 15th December, 1997. On 28th January, 1998, the Department appeared and contested the claim of the Union by filing a written reply. On 16th March, 1998, the tribunal disposed of finally the original application. In para-6, however, the tribunal stated thus;

(3.) Several contentions were raised by Mr.Oza, learned counsel for the petitioner. He stated that the application was finally disposed of on 16th March, 1998 by CAT without entering into merits of the matter and ad interim relief of status quo as on 15th December, 1997 was ordered to be continued. He submitted that as CAT did not decide the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the department and left the parties to get those questions determined in appropriate proceedings, it was not open to the Tribunal to continue ad interim relief by extending an opportunity to the applicants to approach appropriate forum. The order passed by CAT, therefore, is contrary to law and in excess of jurisdiction and the same requires to be quashed and set aside.