Union Of India v. C. Girija

Factual and Procedural Background

The Union of India and others filed an original petition in this Court challenging the order dated 5 June 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 466 of 2009. The Tribunal had heard the matter on 28 May 2012 and decided by the impugned order of 5 June 2012 in consequence of a remand order made earlier by this High Court in its common judgment dated 3 April 2012 in O.P.(CAT) Nos. 82 of 2012 and 925 of 2012.

The establishment (presumably a party affected by the Tribunal's order) filed the present original petition before this Court challenging the Tribunal's 5 June 2012 order. At the Tribunal stage, the applicant had been advised to challenge the remand order made by this Court. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7182-8182 of 2014 set aside the remand order that this Court had earlier made on 3 April 2012, holding that if this Court found fault with the Tribunal's order it should have recorded reasons and set the Tribunal's order aside by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The Supreme Court vacated the remittal order and remitted the matters back to this High Court for re-determination on merits. Because the CAT's 5 June 2012 order was predicated upon the remand order that the Supreme Court later set aside, this Court found the foundational basis for the Tribunal's later order to be lost and proceeded to set aside the impugned Tribunal order without addressing the merits of the underlying dispute between the employees and the establishment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 5 June 2012 (Ext.P17) in O.A. No. 466 of 2009 should be set aside because it was passed pursuant to a remand order made by this High Court that was subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court.
2. In light of the Supreme Court's setting aside of this Court's remand order, whether this Court should express any view on the merits of the rival contentions between the employees and the establishment in the underlying proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeds from a sequence of procedural events recorded in the opinion. It recognizes that the Tribunal's impugned order dated 5 June 2012 was issued after and in consequence of this Court's earlier remand order in its common judgment dated 3 April 2012. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside that remand order and observed that this Court, if it found fault with the Tribunal's order, should have set it aside by recording reasons and passing an appropriate order.

Given the Supreme Court's vacatur of the remand, the High Court reasoned that the "basic substratum" or foundational basis on which the Tribunal had passed its later order was extinguished. Because the Tribunal's order depended on a remand order that no longer had legal effect, the High Court concluded it could not allow the Tribunal's order to stand. The Court therefore set aside the Tribunal's order but explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying controversy between the parties, since the procedural basis for that order had been invalidated by the higher court's ruling.

Holding and Implications

The original petition is allowed and the impugned order (Ext.P17 dated 5 June 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 466 of 2009) is set aside.

Implications:

• The Tribunal's order dated 5 June 2012 has been quashed because it was founded upon a remand order of this Court which the Supreme Court subsequently vacated.
• The High Court did not adjudicate or express any view on the substantive merits of the rival contentions between the employees and the establishment; those contentions remain unaffected by this decision.
• The Supreme Court's vacation of the remand resulted in remitting the controversy back to this Court for re-determination on merits in accordance with law; accordingly, no final determination on the underlying merits is recorded in this judgment.
• No costs were awarded.