- (1.) Special Leave granted.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant was working in the Pune Telecom Department in 1984 when his services were terminated. He contended that the Telecom Department being an industry the termination of his service amounted to retrenchment and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Management to follow the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He had, therefore, moved the Industrial Tribunal for reinstatement and backwages. The Industrial Tribunal set aside his retrenchment and directed reinstatement with full backwages.
(3.) The Management then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, by way of an application under the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 without carrying the matter to the Forum which had superintendence over decisions of the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the employee raised the contention that the Industrial Tribunal had held that he was a workman and had been wrongly retrenched and was, therefore, entitled to compensation under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and since that procedure was not followed his retrenchment was bad in law. The Central Administrative Tribunal without going into the question whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the matter in the following terms: "In view of the aforesaid observations, it is crystal clear, that even assuming without admitting that we do not have jurisdiction and even if the decision of the Supreme Court is per incuriam, it is not for this Tribunal to give its finding." ;