G.S. Singhvi, J. - (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. The uncontroverted facts of the case are that petitioners Badloo Prasad and Ran Paul were appointed as Mali and Ground Boy -cum -Peon in Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 16, Chandigarh, with effect from 28.4.1984 and 17.9.1984, respectively. Their services were terminated in 1987 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the 1 °47 Act'). The petitioners challenged the action of the management of the school by raising industrial dispute under the 1947 Act. By an award dated 4.3.1991 (Annexure PI), the Labour Court, Chandigarh, declared the termination of the services of petitioner No. 2 as void and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back - wages. Civil Writ Petition No. 7990 of 1991 filed by the management of the school was dismissed by this Court on January 17, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioners jointly represented to the Principal of the School to regularise their services by contending that they had continuously served for 14 years. They also filed C.W.P. No. 3954 of 1999, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. After that, they served legal notice upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and having failed to get any response, they filed C.W.P. No. 9324 of 1999, which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 14.7.1999 with the following direction : - "Contends that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation in terms of the policy, Annexure P -4. They served a legal notice dated 6.4,1999, Annexure P -3, but the same has not been disposed of till today . After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and pursuing the record, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Principal, Senior Secondary School, Sector 16, Chandigarh to take a decision on the legal notice dated 6.4.1999, Annexure P -5, within a period of four months from the date of receipt by him a copy of this order. In case he is not the competent officer to order regularization , he shall inform the petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the competent authority in this behalf." Their claim for regularisation was rejected by the Director Public Instruction (S), Chandigarh, vide Memo, dated 11.4.2000 on the ground that their cases are not covered by the policy framed by the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioners challenged the decision contained in memo dated 11.4.2000 by filing an application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, which was summarily dismissed by the Tribunal on 15.5.2000. The relevant extract of the Tribunal's order reads as under : - "The order passed by the Director Pubic Instructions makes it clear that they were employed on part -time basis by the Principal of the School and are being paid out of the Student Funds. Apparently, they are not covered under the policy instructions contained in letter dated September 11,1996. The policy instructions dated 31.5.98 relied upon by the applicants had never been issued by the Chandigarh Administration. The teamed counsel for the applicants has failed to show during the course of hearing that the applicants were being paid out of the State Funds or out of the Contingent funds. It is clearly mentioned in the orders of the Director Public Instructions that the applicants are being paid out of the Students funds and are not covered by the Policy instructions. Once the applicants are not covered by the Policy instructions regarding regularisation, no relief can be granted to them."
(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.;