W.P.(C)/11348/2016 of JOGINDER JOON & ORS Vs NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11348/2016 and C.M. Appl. No. 44445/2016 (for exemption)

JOGINDER JOON & ORSThrough:Mr. K.K. Bhatnagar, Advocate.

..... Petitioners

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate for R-1.Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

O R R%30.11.2016

1.Petitioners admittedly are employees of North Delhi MunicipalCorporation and South Delhi Municipal Corporation. Delhi MunicipalCorporation is included in the list of entities disputes of which with itsemployees have to be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal,Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2.The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgmentin the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 1SCC 400, in paragraph 99 has held that this Court does not exerciseoriginal jurisdiction, and which original jurisdiction is exercised bythe Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,and this Court only exercises supervisory jurisdictionW.P.(C) 11348/2016page 1 of 3

after the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, decidesthe matter exercising original jurisdiction. This paragraph 99 of theConstitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L.

Chandra Kumar (supra) reads as under:-

“99.In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold thatClause 2(d) of Article323Aand Clause 3(d) of Article323B, tothe extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts andthe Supreme Court under Articles226/227and32of theConstitution, are unconstitutional. Section28of the Act and the"exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislationsenacted under the aegis of Articles323Aand323Bwould, tothe same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferredupon the High Courts under Articles226/227and upon theSupreme Court under Article32of the Constitution is part ofthe inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While thisjurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals mayperform asupplemental role in discharging the powersconferred by Articles226/227and32of the Constitution. TheTribunals created under Article323Aand Article323Bof theConstitution are possessed of the competence to test theconstitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. Alldecisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject toscrutiny before Division Bench of the High Court withinwhose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunalswill, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance inrespect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted.It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approachthe High Courts even in cases where they question the vires ofstatutory legislations (except where the legislation whichcreates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking thejurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal.Section5(6)of the Actis valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the mannerwe have indicated.”(underling added)

3.Accordingly, this writ petition is not maintainable before thisCourt and is, therefore, dismissed giving the petitioners liberty toapproach Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, NewDelhi.

NOVEMBER 30, 2016AK

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

W.P.(C) 11348/2016