Judgment :- 1. An interesting question, on which there can be two opinions, arises in these Original Petitions. The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these Original Petitions in view of S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In order to decide the above questions, it is necessary to look into the prayers in these original petitions. The main prayers in O.P. No. 1937 of 1993 are as follows: "(a) A writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order prohibiting respondents 1 to 3 from terminating the services or denying work to the petitioners 2 to 22 in the maintenance department; (b) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to renew the identity cards of the petitioners for entry in the INS Venduruthy so long as they are employed in the maintenance department of the Sailors Married Accommodation in the INS Venduruthy; (c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to grant minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act to the petitioners and all other benefits deserved by the petitioners under the various labour laws and standing orders Ext.P2. The prayers in O.P. No. 14066 of 1966 are as follows: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularisation in the respective post of casual employees; (ii) A writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get work and wages with the respondents without any break and issue necessary directions to the respondents to engage the petitioner accordingly; (iii) To issue a writ or mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents not to appoint or engage anybody as casual labourer under the establishment of the respondents till the petitioner and similarly placed persons included in the seniority list are fully engaged". 2. S.14 of the Act reads as follows: "14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. S.14 of the Act reads as follows: "14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall excise on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercise immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by the civilian; (b) all service matters concerning - (i) a member of any All India Service; or (ii) a person (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)) appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or (iii) A civilian (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)) appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence; and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation or society or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to "Union" in this sub-section shall be construed as including reference also to a Union Territory". The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan strongly contended that petitioners, who are only casual labourers do not hold civil posts under the Defence Services and therefore, they are not coming within the ambit of the Act which gives jurisdiction to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to deal with their service matters. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan strongly contended that petitioners, who are only casual labourers do not hold civil posts under the Defence Services and therefore, they are not coming within the ambit of the Act which gives jurisdiction to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to deal with their service matters. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Assam and Ors. v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (AIR 1967 SC 884). In the above ruling, the Supreme Court was examining the question whether a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley holds a civil post under the State of Assam. While dealing with the above question, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "A post under the State is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office or a position to which person is appointed and which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post, Art.310(2) emphasises the idea of a post existing apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post..." 3. In a later ruling reported in the Superintendent of Post Offices and others v. P. K. Rajamma (AIR 1977 SC 1677) the Supreme Court again held that a casual labourer is not the holder of a post in the following terms: "... A post it was explained, exists apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labour is not the holder of a post". "It is thus clear that an extra departmental agent is not a casual worker but he holds a post under the administrative control of the State. It is apparent from the rules that the employment of an extra departmental agent is in post which exists "apart from" the person who happens to fill it at any particular time. Though such a post is outside the regular civil services, there is no doubt it is a post under the State." 4. It is apparent from the rules that the employment of an extra departmental agent is in post which exists "apart from" the person who happens to fill it at any particular time. Though such a post is outside the regular civil services, there is no doubt it is a post under the State." 4. The learned counsel also relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in Tirath Raj, HPSEB v. H.P. State Electricity Board (1989 (4) SLR 360). The above case related to the claims of daily rated trade mates in the Electricity Board for regulation as Clerks and also payment of wages in the same scale of pay of regular employees. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, a State Administrative Tribunal has been constituted under S.15 of the Act and therefore it was argued that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the original petitions filed by the daily rated employees of the Electricity Board. The Division Bench relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kanak Chandra Dutta's case (AIR 1967 SC 884) and P. K. Rajamma's case (AIR 1977 SC 1677) held that the casual employees like the petitioners therein are not holding any posts under the State and therefore, do not come under the purview of the Act and therefore writ petitions in the High Court are maintainable. 5. The same question came up before the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in the ruling reported in Basudevpur (R & B) NMR Emp. Assn. v. State of Orissa (1992 (4) SLR 271). The question which came up for consideration before the Full Bench was as follows: "Whether having regard to the provisions contained in S.15 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by a casual labourer/worker, daily rated worker, like a Nominal Muster Roll employee (for short'NMR') employed by the State Government, for enforcement of his fundamental right under Art.14 of the Constitution of India for payment of equal pay for equal work and to and there is exploitation?" The Orissa High Court also followed two judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above to come to the conclusion that a casual labourer is not the holder of a post. Thus, the Orissa High Court also upheld that jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the service matters of casual employees. 6. In order to understand the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution and that of C.A.T. under the Act it is necessary to analyse the relevant provisions contained in the Act. According to S.2(a) of the Act, the provisions of the Act shall not apply to any member of the Naval, Military or Air Force or any other force of the Union. S.3(q) defines service matters, which reads as follows: "(q) 'service matters', in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or as the case may be, of any Corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government, as respects, -(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever;" S.14 deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of the C.A.T. In this case, the petitioners are seeking employment in the Southern Naval Command and admittedly, in the Defence Services. Therefore, S.14(a) and (b)(iii) are relevant in this context. According to S.14(a) recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to a post connected with defence or in the Defence Services, being, in either case a post filled by a Civilian comes within the jurisdiction of the C.A.T. Further, all service matters concerning a civilian appointed to any Defence Services or a post connected with the defence will also come under the purview of C.A.T. 7. In O.P. No. 14066 of 1996, the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Ernakulam as per the requisition of the respondents for being engaged as Peon, Sweeper, Cleaner etc. The petitioner along with others approached this court on an earlier occasion with a prayer to absorb them as regular employees in preference to outsiders giving them weightage for the service rendered by them as casual labourers. Ext.P2 is the common judgment in the above Original Petitions. The petitioner along with others approached this court on an earlier occasion with a prayer to absorb them as regular employees in preference to outsiders giving them weightage for the service rendered by them as casual labourers. Ext.P2 is the common judgment in the above Original Petitions. Ext.P2 reveals that a gradation list of casual unskilled labourers had been prepared and published by the respondents and the respondents are making appointments from the gradation list. In O.P. No. 1937 of 1993, Ext.P3 representation filed by Southern Naval Command Civiliar Employees' Association has been produced. In the representation, the employees requested to bring them within the purview of the scheme of the Employment Provident Fund. They have also requested the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Ernakulam to take action against the respondents for violation of various Labour Welfare legislation. Exts.P5 and P5(a) have been produced in O.P. No. 14066 of 1996 along with C.M.P. No. 28576 of 1996 which are the appointment orders of persons like the petitioners as unskilled labourers. A reading of the above orders shows that even communal reservation has been maintained while making appointments. 8. In O.P. No. 14066 of 1996, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The averments in the above counter affidavit will go to show that persons like the petitioners approached the C.A.T. claiming regularisation of their service in Group D post in O.A. No. 488/92, 2266/93 and 148/94. Pursuance to the directions contained in these Original applications a gradation list for unskilled labourers has been prepared and appointments are being made from the above list. 9. If the rulings of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Orissa High Court are to be accepted in toto, then. definitely, this Court has jurisdiction to consider these Original Petitions. But, I find there is subtle distinction between the wording of S.14 and 15. S.15, which deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals reads as follows: "15. definitely, this Court has jurisdiction to consider these Original Petitions. But, I find there is subtle distinction between the wording of S.14 and 15. S.15, which deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals reads as follows: "15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to - (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State; (b) all service matters concerning a person (not being a person referred to in clause (c) of this sub-section or a member, person or civilian referred to in clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of S.14) appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the State Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by placed by any such local or other authority or corporation or society or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment. (2) The State Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-s. 3 to local or other authorities and corporations or societies controlled or owned by the State Government: Provided that if the State Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations or societies. (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this subsection apply to any local or other authority or corporation or society all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation or society; and (b) all service matters concerning a person (other than a person referred to in clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of this section or a member, person or civilian referred to in clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of S.14) appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation or society and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs. (4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Administrative Tribunal for the State shall not extend to or be exercisable in relation to, any matter in relation to which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal extends or is exercisable." Sub-clauses (a), (b) specifically refer to 'any civil post' under the State. Therefore, the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Orissa are perfectly justified in holding that casual labourers do not hold civil posts as held by the two Supreme Court rulings mentioned above. At the same time, as far as the service matters of defences service are concerned, S.14(a) and S.14(b)(iii) refer only to a post connected with defence or in the defence services or a post filled by a civilian or a civilian appointed to any defence service or a post connected with defence. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners are being either engaged or appointed to posts like Peons, Cleaners, etc. in the defence services. It cannot also be disputed that they are civilians. Therefore, applying S.14 of the Act and the nature of the post held by the petitioner as a civilian employee in the defence services, there is no scope for holding that this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the cases relating to service matters of the petitioners. 9. It cannot also be disputed that they are civilians. Therefore, applying S.14 of the Act and the nature of the post held by the petitioner as a civilian employee in the defence services, there is no scope for holding that this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the cases relating to service matters of the petitioners. 9. Service matters include all matters relating to the conditions of service. Remuneration (including allowances), tenure including confirmation, seniority promotion etc. and disciplinary matters or any other matters whatsoever come within the ambit of service matters as defined in the Act. The prayers in these Original Petitions relate to termination of services, payment of minimum wages, regularisation in the respective posts, extension of benefits under the various labour laws etc. Thus, it is abundantly clear that what the petitioner want in these Original Petitions are really service matters as defined in the Act, thus, depriving this Court the jurisdiction to entertain them. 10. At the same time, I hasten to add that this judgment should not be understood to have held that casual labourers are holding civil posts. Therefore, these Original Petitions cannot be entertained by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Original Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.