R B SHUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT of prohibition/mandamusis prayed by petitioner to restrain Union of India and others from pursuing a misconceived proceeding at a forum of incompetent jurisdiction, to nip in the bud the mischief complained.

(2.) FACTS of the case for disposal of the instant petition are few and admitted and those we state at the outset. Petitioner has been in the service of the Central Railways and during the relevant period he was posted at Gwalior Railway Station as Travelling Ticket Examiner. During the period, 2. 1. 1987 to 10. 11. 1987, it is alleged, he committed certain fiscal irregularities and an order was accordingly made for deduction from his salary of certain amount. That order was challenged under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, P. W. Act) in Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior. On 11. 10. 1989 directions were made by that Court in those proceedings against authorities concerned that they shall not give effect to the order passed for deduction from petitioner's salary of two sums of Rs. 5,342/- and Rs. 1,006/ -. The notice issued in regard to the said deduction was held void. Under Section 17 of the said Act that order is appealable.

(3.) THE appeal contemplated under aforesaid Section 17 (1) lies "in a Presidency-town before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court''. Be it also mentioned that there is a State amendment in Madhya Pra-dcsh of Section 17 (1) by which these words have been substituted by the words "before the Industrial Court". Evidently, the aforesaid order dated 11. 10. 1989, was passed by the Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, could be challenged under Section 17 (1), P. W. Act before the Industrial Court in view of the State amendment. However, insteat of pursuing the specific statutory remedy the respondents took the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur (for short, Tribunal or CAT) and from there notice was issued to the petitioner for his appearance and showing cause in the matter brought before the Tribunal by the respondents. That notice was issued on 28. 8. 1990. But the petitioner, having learnt of lodgment of respondent's application, rushed to this Court on 17. 7. 1990, complaining against misadventure of the respondents, to restrain them from continuing the said proceedings before the Tribunal.