Alok Agrawal vs Union of India and Others

The main point involved in this writ petition is whether the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) can be notified u/s 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (the Act), so as to confer jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) to decide service dispute of the employees of SAIL.

THE FACTS

Shri Alok Agrawal (the Petitioner) is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, a unit of SAIL. The petitioner as well as other employees have service dispute with SAIL. They have been raising their service dispute before the Industrial/Labour Courts or before the High Court, as the case may be.

The Parliament by the Act has constituted the Tribunal for considering the service dispute among the Central Government employees. Section 14 of the Act also envisages, entrustment of service disputes of other authorities also the Tribunal.

The Central Government has issued a notification dated 31.3.2010 u/s 14(2) of the Act entrusting the service disputes of the employees of the SAIL also to the Tribunal.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the notification dated 31st March, 2010.

SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER

We have heard counsel for the parties. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that:

(i) The SAIL is neither a local authority nor any other authority:

(ii) The notification u/s 14(2) of the Act could not be issued.

THE DECISION

Section 14(2) of the Act envisages that, apart from others, service dispute of local or any other authority can be entrusted to the Tribunal, if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied.

It is not disputed by the counsel for the Respondents that the SAIL is not a local authority. However, they submit that:

� The SAIL is ''authority other than local authority'';

� It is under the control of the Central Government; and

� The notification could be issued u/s 14(2) of the Act; and

� It is valid.

Section 14 of the Act is titled as ''Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal''. Section 14(1) of the Act provides the service matters of Central Government as well as service matters of employees of some other authorities (as detailed in Section 14(1)(c) of the Act) who are at the disposal of the Central Government, are to be gone into by the Tribunal.

Section 14(2) of the Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification, apply the provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act in respect of certain authorities, detailed therein. Among others, these authorities include ''local or other authorities under the control of Government of India''.

The Central Government in paragraph 6 of its counter-affidavit, has stated that 85.82% shares of SAIL are held by the Government of India and it is under the control of Ministry of Steel and Mines, that is, Central Government.

The Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. However, there is no specific denial of paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit of the Union of India. In view of above, we have no reason to disbelieve the reply of the Central Government.

Majority of shares of 85.82% SAIL are held by the Government of India. It may not be a local authority but it is definitely an authority other than local authority, that is, under the control of Government of India.

In view of the same, there is no illegality in notifying SAIL u/s 14(2) of the Act.

CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusions are as follows:

(a) SAIL is not a local authority but is other authority within the meaning of Section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1988;

(b) It is under the control of the Government of India;

(c) It can be notified u/s 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1988.

In view of our conclusions, there is no illegality in issuing the notification. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.