9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the enforcement of an order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, and the interpretation of the term "proceeding" under section 29 of the Act. Enforcement of Tribunal Order: The petitioners filed R.P. No. 986/84 in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal under Article 371-D, and the Tribunal allowed their petition. Subsequently, they filed a writ petition in the High Court for enforcement. The High Court directed them to approach the Administrative Tribunal for enforcement under para 8(5) of the Presidential Order. The petitioners then filed an execution petition in the City Civil Court, which was challenged in the High Court. The Single Judge held that the execution falls under sections 29 and 29-A of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, and the petitioners should seek enforcement from the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act. Interpretation of "Proceeding" under Section 29: The Supreme Court analyzed the term "proceeding" under section 29 of the Act and concluded that it must be understood broadly. The word "proceeding" signifies a course of action to enforce a legal right and includes the execution process. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction to enforce Tribunal orders lies with the Tribunal itself, as the Act intended to exclude civil courts from adjudicating and executing disputes related to service conditions of employees. Therefore, the Tribunal constituted under the Act has the authority to enforce orders passed by the previous Tribunal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the execution petition before the Civil Court was not permissible. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) and directed the petitioners to approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for enforcing the order passed by the previous Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Act and Rules.
|
