P.SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.) By this Civil Application, the respondents in O.A. 819 of 1988 viz. Union of India and Ors., want us to stay the operation of our order dated 26.4.1989 disposing of the said original application on the ground that they are filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
(2.) Mr. M. M. Mallick, Learned Counsel for the original respondents (applicants in this application) submits that this Tribunal being a high powered body established by an Act of Parliament in pursuance of Articles 323A of the Constitution as an effective substitute to the High Court, it has all the powers of a High Court. Referring to Sec. 22(3)(i) of the Act (Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985), which vests the same powers in the Tribunal as are vested in civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of "any other matters which may be prescribed by the Central Government", Mr. Mallick submits that this power includes the power to stay the operation of the judgement and order of the Tribunal itself even after it has been delivered. Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1985, as amended up to date enables the Tribunal to pass such orders/directions as it may deem fit to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure ends of justice. According Mr. Mallick this means that even after an application is disposed of by an order/judgement, the Tribunal continues to be in seisin of that matter to pass such order as it may deem fit or to pass an order staying the operation of the judgement/order passed by it. Mr. Mallick also cites Sec. 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 conferring on the Tribunal the power to punish for contempt as another example where the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over a case continues even after that case is finally disposed of by it.
(3.) Opposing the Civil Application vehemently, Mr. Samir Ghose, counsel for the original applicant (respondent in this case) submits that under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, no appeal is provided against the judgement/order of this Tribunal disposing of an application. The only recourse available to either party is to approach the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution by way of Special Leave Petition which is purely in the discretion of the Supreme Court to admit or not. The provisions of Articles 132, 133, 134 and 134A of the Constitution which provide that the High Court may issue a certificate of fitness in suitable cases for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court do not apply to this Tribunal. In other words, the nexus between the Tribunal and the application ceases when the application is disposed of by a final judgement/order passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Ghose, therefore, argues that once a judgement/order is pronounced, thereafter this Tribunal is no longer in seisin of the matter and cannot stay the operation of its own judgement.;