Union of India (UOI) and Others vs P.K. Kumaran and Others

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.—Challenge in these petitions is to the legality of a common judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (in short ''Tribunal''). Applicants before Tribunal were store staff attached with the Naval Base, Cochin and were broadly classified as Civilian Employees in the Navy. Following an earlier decision rendered in O.A.K. 58/88 holding that an employee belonging to the category of non-industrial workman, should be entitled to overtime allowance in the event of being made to work for more than the prescribed period of forty hours a week, allowed the applications.

Challenge in these applications is that earlier decision had not properly dealt with the issue.

It is fairly accepted by learned counsel for petitioners that earlier decisions of Tribunal dealing with identical issue were not interfered with by apex Court. It is submitted that dismissal of SLP (in short ''S.L.P.'') is not disposal on merits.

It is a well settled principle of law that when an SLP is summarily dismissed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ''Constitution''), by such dismissal apex Court does not lay down any law, as envisaged by Article 141 of Constitution. Dismissal of SLP in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that by necessary implication, the contentions raised in SLP on merits of the case have been rejected by Supreme Court. [See Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1986 S.C. 1780]. The effect of con-speaking order of dismissal of an SLP without anything more indicating grounds or reasons of its , dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where SLP should be granted. Where reasons are given, decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of Constitution which provides that the law declared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It, therefore, follows that when no reason is given, but an SLP is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by apex Court under Article 141 of Constitution. [See Supreme Court Employees'' Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and C.G. Govindan Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, .

In view of the fact that Civil Appeal itself was dismissed and not SLP as contended, we do not accept the stand of Petitioners that apex Court had not considered relevant aspects. There is difference between dismissal of SLP and dismissal of Civil Appeal. Question whether apex Court had considered the relevant aspects or not cannot be decided by us in these Original Petitions.

Above being the position, we do not entertain the Original Petitions which are dismissed.