Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is an employee of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, a Government of India Enterprise, has assailed the suspension order dated May 30, 2002 as well as change of Headquarters.
(2.) In pursuance of the powers conferred upon it by Clause (1) of Article 323 A of the Constitution, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act 13 of 1985). Chapter III of the said Act consists of Sections 14 to 18. Section 14, 15 and 16 of the said Act deals with the jurisdiction, powers and Authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the State Administrative Tribunals and the Joint Administrative Tribunals respectively. These provisions made it clear that except for the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunals under the Act 13 of 1985 will possess the jurisdiction and powers of every other Court in the country in respect of all service related matters. Their Lordships of the Supreme in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : [1997(2) SLR 1 (SC)] indicated in pars 99 thus: "99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323 B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" Clauses in all other legislation enacted under the ageis of Articles 323 A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the in violative basic structure of our Constitution. While the jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of Statutory provisions and Rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to do scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where the question the vires of Statutory legislation (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated." (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) Mr. Manish Bhandari learned Counsel canvassed that the petitioner is the employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited which is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no Notification has been issued under the Act. In view of the ratio propounded by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submission. Tribunal performs a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar case (supra). I am of the opinion that the petitioner should first approach the Tribunal and thereafter, if he feels aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, he is at liberty to seek remedy before the Division Bench of this Court.;