news details |
|
|
| ‘CAT has no jurisdiction to hear service disputes in corporation/company’ | | |
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, July 4 (JNF): A Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) comprising Dr Bhagwan Sahai Administrative Member and Rakesh Sagar Jain, Judicial Member hold that Tribunal is not vested with any jurisdiction to entertain any petition related to any service dispute in Corporation/company.
CAT further observed that if the corporation/Company has not been brought within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by a notification to be issued by the Central Government under Sec 14 (2) of the Act and therefore, so long as this notification is not issued, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of any service matter pertaining to the respondent-Company under the Act.
This significant judgment has been passed in a petition filed by Parmesh Lal seeking relief with regard to his service dispute regarding correction of his Date of Birth in the records of respondent-organization J&K Minerals Ltd.
CAT observed that in the present case, applicant is an employee of the respondent (J&K Minerals Ltd.) and the corporation/Company has not been brought within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by a notification to be issued by the Central Government under Sec 14 (2) of the Act and therefore, so long as this notification is not issued, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of any service matter pertaining to the respondent-Company under the Act and accordingly hold that this Tribunal is not vested with any jurisdiction to entertain any petition related to any service dispute in the Corporation/company.
CAT further observed that an argument was raised by the counsel for the application that the respondents have not raised the objection regarding jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear the O.A. The contention of learned counsel for applicant is devoid of force of law and to has be rejected. Irrespective of the fact whether any objection is taken to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear the matter, the Tribunal is also to see for itself whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the matter or not. It is a settled principle of law that neither counsels can waive the jurisdiction nor consent to confer jurisdiction on courts/tribunals where none exists. With these observations, CAT dismissed the O.A for want of jurisdiction and make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of this case and it would be open to the applicant to avail of remedy available to him under the law before the appropriate forum. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
