Allowed

Mes Employees' Unionb and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2005WP/262/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that the Military Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the applicability of the Government Order dated 24.10.1977 to MES employees is a question for the Government of India. The quashed CAT order was remitted in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of CAT was set aside. It was directed that employees be governed by the notification of 24.10.1977 and no other order requiring entry passes shall be given effect for three months o

Mes Employees' Unionb and Anr. Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2004

¶4

MES Employees’ Union and anr. ... Petitioners Vs. Union of India and anr. ... Respondents Mr. V.S. Kapse for Petitioner. Ms. A.S. Kaushik for Respondents.

¶5

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & S.P. KUKDAY,JJ. DATED : APRIL 27, 2005

¶6

P.C.

¶7

. In view of the order dated 28.3.2005, Rule.

¶8

Heard forthwith.

¶9

. The Petitioners impugn the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.10.2002. The Original Application was filed by the Petitioner herein to contend that the Respondents herein were bound to follow notification dated 24.10.1977 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, and that the general order No. 20/01 dated 1.6.2001 regarding the issue of residential area passes to civilian in so far as Para Nos. 6 and 7A are concerned for fixing validity period of five years or till allottees are in occupation of

¶10

¶11

the	Gove	rnment acc	ommodation whichever is		earlier
is	illegal	and simi	larly some other r	eliefs	against
those	directions.	It	is not necessary to	adver	t to
all	contentions.	The	respondents took a	stand	that
the	issue	of passes	of family members	of	MES
employees	is	not a	service matter and does	not	come
within	the	purview	of the tribunal.	It	was
secondly		contended	that the applicants	are	staying
in	Navy	Nagar	residential area. The	accom	modation
to	MES	employees	is located on Ministry	of	defence
land	wherein	the	Indian Navy has	c	onstructed
residential	qua	rters for	their personnels	posted	in
Mumbai	area.	The	Respondent No.	1	had
jurisdiction		in order	to ensure protection	for	all
his r	esidence	to issue	order. The Unit	is	separate
and	distinct	and	is located atleast 3/4	kms	away

¶12

from the nearest defence establishment and as such

¶13

the order of 24.10.1977 will not apply.

¶14

.	The	learne	d tribunal	consid	ering the	rival
pleadings		and	contentions	rejected	the pr	eliminary
objection	for		want of	jurisdiction	and held	that
the tri	bunal	had	jurisdiction.	In	so far	as
applicability	of	the	orders	issued	on 24.10.1977	it
held	that	these	are	applicable	to	regular
establishment		in	the Ministry	of	defence and	would

¶15

¶16

not be applicable to the MES employees and accordingly dismissed the original application. It is this order which is the subject matter of the

¶17

present petition.

¶18

. At the	hearing of	this petition,	on	behalf	of
the Petitioner, learn	ed counsel	points	out	that	the
notification dated	24.10.1977	would ap	ply	to	all
establishments. Rel	iance for	that		purpose	is
placed on Clause	1 which	sets	out	that	the
President has be	en pleased	to approve	ad	option	of
procedure in regard	to the	provisions	of	passes	for
entry into pre	cincts of	the service		estab	lishment
including format	ions, units,	installations		and	MES
establishments. In	other	words, the		order,	applies

¶19

to service establishment and the MES establishment

¶20

would fall under the service establishment.

¶21

.	The	only	question	is	whether	the	residential
quarters	of	such	MES	emplo	yees	will	also fall
within	the	meaning	of	the	order	dated	24.10.1977.

¶22

The various clauses in the matter of issuance of

¶23

family passes contains the following provision :

¶24

"Families and dependents less children

¶25

below 14 years of age of all service

¶26

personnel and civilian employees residing

¶27

¶28

within the premises of such estt. will

¶29

be issued with IAFZ-3049 or 3049-A as the

¶30

case may be."

¶31

. It also contemplated in Para 3 for issuance of
passes to servants. The cost of the photographs
for the identity card in respect of the employees
and their families and dependents has to be borne
by the Government. The very fact that clause
contemplates issuance of cards to families and
dependents would indicate that it will also apply
to residential quarters covered by the order dated
24.10.1977. On a reading of the order dated
24.10.1977 it would be clear that it would govern
service establishments including MES which will

¶32

also include any residential accommodation of MES employees.

¶33

.	The	defen	ce	of the	respondent	has been	that the
accommodation		in		occupation	of the	MES	employees
are	outside		the	paramet	er of	defence	establishment

¶34

and as such the Government order is not applicable.

¶35

.	This	issue		was	raised	by	the	Union	with	the
Respondent		at	the	r	eview		meeting.		In	such

¶36

¶37

circumstan	ces,	wh	ether the	p	articu	lar	orde	r is
applicable		or	not and if	ther	e	be	disputes	about
the	applic	ability,	we think	it o	ught	to	have	been
proper	for		the respondents	to	hav	e	referred	the
matter	to		the Government	of	In	dia	whose	decision
will	be	binding	on both	Pe	tition	er	and	Respondents.
We	see	no	reason why	such	matte	rs	have	to be
brought	by		way of judicia	l revi	ew	to	the	courts
when	the	proper	form would	have		been	the	Government
of	India		to decide such	issue		and	whose	decision

¶38

would be binding considering the nature of the

¶39

controversy.

¶40

.	In the light of that	the	impugned order of	CAT
is	liable to be set as	ide.	We further direct	that
the	order dated June, 2001	and	order No. 14/02	and
any	other order which	re	quires entry passes,	other
than	as contemplated by	date	d 24.10.1977 will	not
be	given effect to for	the	period of three	months
or	till such time that	that	the Government	of
India,	Ministry of defence	deci	des the issue.	Till
such	time, the emplo	yees	residing in	the
establis	hment will be	gover	ned by the n	otification
of	24.10.1977 and their	entr	ies to the	premises
will	be governed by	the	pass issued under	that

¶41

order till the decision by the Ministry of Defence,

¶42

Government of India.

¶43

¶44

. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to

¶45

costs.

¶46

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

¶47

(S.P. KUKDAY,J.)

Mes Employees' Unionb and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mes Employees' Unionb and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan Shikshan Sastha and Anr. Vs the Education Officer (Secondary)Kolhapur and Ors.

Gajanan Shikshan Sastha and Anr. Vs the Education Officer (Secondary)Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri C.V. Sasidharan Vs Industrial Development Bank of India and Anr.

Singhal and Bros Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Surjit Kaur Hundal Vs the State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Dr. Gopalkrishna Sharma and Ors.