Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 758 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Md Rizwan Ansari

2010-04-15

KISHORE K.MANDAL, SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT S.K.Katriar and K.K.Mandal JJ. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.01.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna bench, in O. A. No.68 of 2003 (Mr. Rizwan Ansari and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.),whereby respondent no.2 (Chief General manager, Telecom, Bihar, Circle, Patna) before the Tribunal has been directed to refer the dispute to B. S. N. L. for reconsideration and necessary action within a reasonable period of time since all the liabilities and assets of the Department of Telecom has been shifted to BSNL. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. A major portion of the duties and functions of the Telecom department were transferred to the Public Sector undertaking created by the Government of India and now known as ,,bharat ,,b. S. N. L. ). The original sanchar Nigam Limited ( in short applicants before the Tribunal (six in number) preferred the original application for a direction to B. S. N. L. to consider the cases for regularization. On consideration of the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that B. S. N. L. had not, till the date of the order, been notified to be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Before we deal with the issue we can be profitably reproduce paragraph no.6 of the order of the Tribunal:- "6. Therefore, in view of these observations, as already made by this court in O. A. No.1002 of 2002, the Respondent No.2 is directed to refer the matter to BSNL for reconsideration and necessary action within a reasonable period of time since all the liabilities and assets of the Department of Telecom has been shifted to BSNL. " 3. It appears from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal that it was conscious of the legal position that B. S. N. L. had not been notified within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. " 3. It appears from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal that it was conscious of the legal position that B. S. N. L. had not been notified within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It, therefore, intended to direct respondent no.1 (Union of India through the secretary, Department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi)before it to refer the dispute to B. S. N. L. Law is well-settled that such a direction can be issued to the Government of India to refer the issue to a body which may or may not be "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti morcha vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 802 . 4. It requires to be clarified that respondent no.2 occurring in paragraph no.6 of the order of the Tribunal is typographical error for respondent no.1. We accordingly clarify that the Tribunal has directed respondent no.1 ( the Union of India through the Secretary, department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi) to refer the dispute to B. S. N. L. for consideration. 5. We must notice another aspect of the matter stated in i. A. No.2202 of 2006, filed by respondents herein, the original applicants before the Tribunal, stating therein that the dispute is under conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna, as evidenced by the communication marked annexures A and B. It goes without saying that the conciliation proceedings shall take its own course. It goes without saying that the action of the authorities of B. S. N. L. shall abide the result of the conciliation proceedings. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.