- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ has filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-3-2003, by which the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the Application of the Respondent No. 1 and granted him the relief of reinstatement with all back wages along with confirmation of temporary status w. e. f. 1-9- 1993.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Respondent No. 1 had been engaged as part- time Farras vide order dated 27-3-1989. He had been granted enhancement from time to time. He made an application for giving him job on daily wages, which was accepted and he was allowed to work on full time. Acceptance of his request was approved vide order dated 23-3-1991 and he was being paid Rs. 27- 92 per day. Subsequently, Government of India framed the Scheme on 10-9-1993 for granting temporary status to daily wage employees for their regularisation. As the case of the said respondent workmen was not considered, he filed objection on 17-5-1993, making it clear that he had initially been engaged as a part-time employee. As his representation/objection was not considered, being aggrieved, he filed O. A. No. 1297 of 1994, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11-4- 2002, issuing direction to the authorities concerned to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Scheme dated 10-9-1993. In pursuance of the said order, his claim was considered and rejected vide order dated 27-7-2002. Being aggrieved, he again approached the learned Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 905 of 2002, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order. Hence this petition. A large number of issues have raised by Shri B. N. Singh and very heavy reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issuing certain directions regarding the regularisation under the Scheme of the Government. However, all the issues which have been agitated before this Court by Shri B. N. Singh do not find reference/place in the impugned judgment and order. Thus, he was confronted as to whether the factual issues could be raised first time in the writ petition without laying down in a factual foundation before the learned Tribunal. In reply, it has been submitted by him that all the issues including the application of the Scheme etc. and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically been agitated before the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration and deciding the same. Shri J. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the caveator-respondent- workman has disputed the factual position, submitting that issues raised before this Court had not been agitated while making submissions before the learned Tribunal and he contended that this Court cannot go into those factual matrix and decide the case afresh. If petitioner is aggrieved by any means, he can maintain a review application before the learned Tribunal.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties on this aspect and perused the record. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayk, AIR 1982 SC 1249, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar case, held as under: "we are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt, Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. . . . . . . if a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party. . . . . . . . . to call the attention of the very Judges. . . . . . . . . . ";