BADLOO PRASAD, MALI Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') dismissing in limine the application filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the 1985 Act') for directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (non -applicants before the Tribunal) to regularise their services.

(2.) THE notices issued by the Court have been duly served upon the respondents, but neither the written statement has been filed by them to controvert the averments made in the petition nor any one has appeared on their behalf to defend the order under challenge.

(3.) WE have heard Shri K.S. Dadwal and perused the record. Learned counsel argued that the impugned order should be declared as vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record because of the Tribunal's failure to consider the material evidence produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim for regularisation of service. He referred to the award passed by the Labour Court to show that petitioner No. 2 was initially appointed in the regular pay -scale, but later on the terms of his employment were arbitrarily changed and submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application summarily.