UNION OF INDIA Vs. A GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.07.2003 in Contempt Application No.43 of 2003 in O.A.No.65 of 2002. THE first respondent herein has approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.65 of 2002 seeking for the relief of direction to the petitioners to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground. THE first respondent's father had worked as F.G.M. (S.K.) in M.E.S. Tambaram and died in harness on 13.10.94. THE first respondent is stated to be the only son. He also by that time passed H.Sc., apart from Typewriting Lower Grade (English). THE said O.A. was resisted by the petitioners. However, the Tribunal ultimately disposed of the Original Application, on 11.6.2002 by passing the following Order:

(3.) ON a careful reading of Section 17 of the Administrative tribunal Act along with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act we discern that wherever reference is made to the High Court in Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act will have to be taken to mean the Tribunal, having regard to the fiction created under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. If for the purpose of Section 19, the Tribunal is to be read into Section 19 by virtue of application of Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as a corollary, as against any order of the Tribunal in a Contempt Application, the remedy available to an aggrieved party can only be to the Supreme Court. If that be the legal position and when there is a statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 19 of the contempt of Courts Act, there is no scope to examine the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in the Writ Petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.