filing O.A No.726(C)/1996, who was similarly placed as the applicant in T.A. No. 56(C)/1993, and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. vide order dated 14.3.1996 stating that the order passed in T.A No.56(C)/1993 is applicable to him and therefore, directed the authorities to examine his case and pass necessary orders within three months. These petitioners had approached the Tribunal in O.A No. 935/1999 seeking their regualrisation of services and for grant of minimum wages as per the direction in T.A NO.56(C)/1993 and the Tribunal in its order dated 30.4.1999 disposed of the O.A directing the O.Ps to grant all benefits as granted to similarly situated persons and also pointed out that they are entitled to the benefits in pursuance of the order dated 23.11.1995 passed in T.A. NO.56(C)/1993. Thereafter, the opposite parties regularized the services of the petitioner and 38 others vide letter No.43444 dated 10.10.2008 against the existing vacancies. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he should have approached the Tribunal immediately within the time specified, but the petitioner remained silent. Subsequently, in C.P. No.308(C) of 2013, he filed intervention petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2013 granting liberty to the petitioner to file O.A., as was directed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.1995 in T.A. No.56(C) of 1993. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in C.P. No.308(C) of 2013 entertaining the intervention petition and granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A. because C.P. case is the matter between the petitioner and the Court. Therefore, the Tribunal has acted excess of its jurisdiction and as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
