Income Tax Contingent Employees Union, Income- Tax Office, Jodhpur and Jagdish Solanki V. Union Of India, Through The Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India and Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income- Tax, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur and Chief Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Paota, C- Road, Jodhpur and Hina P Shah, Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur

CW/3798/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by the Income Tax Contingent Employees Union and its president, Jagdish Solanki, against the Union of India and other respondents, challenging the CAT's decision which dismissed their application for wage enhancement based on the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. The CAT had dismissed the application due to lack of proper authorization from the union members, as the president had signed the application without their consent. The High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition was based on the procedural impropriety in filing the OA and the fact that similar issues had been previously adjudicated.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701419 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax Contingent Employee's Union & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors
• Laws Referred To: Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BHANDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: T C GUPTA
• Keywords: Authorization; Central Administrative Tribunal; Income-Tax Contingent Employees Union; Daily wages enhancement; 6th Central Pay Commission
• Section: 7; 19; 4(5)(a); 4(5)(b)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3798/2019 1. Income Tax Contingent Employees Union, Income- Tax Office, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours Of Income- Tax, Rajasthan Region). 2. Jagdish Solanki S/o Shri Lal Chand,, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 3Rd Pole, Mahamandir, Jodhpur. (President Of The Income- Tax Contingent Employee's Union). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur- 302005. 3. Chief Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Paota, C- Road, Jodhpur- 342010. 4. Hina P Shah, Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur- 342001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment / Order Per Hon’ble Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 09/07/2019 The present writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.48/2017 – Income Tax Contingent Employee’s Union & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors and the order dated 27.09.2018 passed in Review Application No.6/2018. (2 of 5) [CW-3798/2019] Brief facts of the case are that the present Original Application was filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the Association of the Casual Labours of the Income Tax Department for the enhancement of daily wages from 1.1.2006 as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. They further prayed for the payment of interest @ 12% for the period of delay. Reply was filed by the respondents and after meeting the preliminary objections, the Tribunal examined the matter in view of Rule 7 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. For brevity, the same is reproduced as under:- “Production of authorisation for and on behalf of an Association :- Where an application/pleading or other proceeding purported to be filed is by an Association, the person or persons who sign(s)/verify(ies) the same shall produce along with such application, etc., for verification by the Registry, a true copy of the resolution of the Association empowering such person(s) to do so: Provided the Registrar may at any time call upon the party to produce such further materials as he deems fit for satisfying himself about due authorisation.” The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the proper authorisation was never made to the applicant No.1 to file OA on their behalf and the OA was filed without the consent of the members of the Association and the President of the applicant No.1 -Association suo moto signed the authorisation on their behalf. The tribunal while dealing with the issue held as under:- “15. Furthermore, filing of present application by the applicant No.1 ‘Association’, delayed and some-what prejudiced the cause of the Members who never authorized the applicant No.1 to file the Original Application on their behalf. Though the applicant No.1 Association vaguely mentioned in para 7 of the OA that some of the Members have filed separate applications but it did not produce list of the same. It is noted that some (3 of 5) [CW-3798/2019] of the Members had to deny specifically that they have not joined together in the matter pursued by the applicant No.1 in this Tribunal by sending a letter, which is part of record of OA No.290/00329/15. It appears that the applicant Association filed instant OAs without consenting its members and President of the applicant No.1 Association suo motu signed authorization on their behalf. As such, the President of the Association created a lot of unnecessary controversy. In these circumstances, after giving my thoughtful consideration to the conduct of the applicant No.1 that he inter-alia tried to misuse the provisions of the Act & Rules made for larger benefits of the aggrieved persons and consequently, prejudiced the cause of other bonafide persons. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on Mr. Jagdish Solanki, President, Income-tax Contingent Employee’s Union, Jodhpur who signed the authorization on behalf of applicant No.1 Association for filing the OA in names of persons who have not consented to be party in the present OA. 15. In view of the discussions hearinabove made, these Original Applications are not maintainable and the same are dismissed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of these case, the following directions are given: (i). This order shall not prejudice the right of the person(s) who wish to file application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in individual capacity or joins together in Single Application as per rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal(Procedure) Rules, 1987. (ii). Hereinafter, Registry shall carefully scrutinize the applications filed under rule 4(5)(b) of ‘The Central Administrative Tribunal(Procedure) Rules, 1987’ read with rule 7 of ‘The Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993’. A separate application seeking leave of the Tribunal for joining together to pursue the matters as per rule 4(5)(b) of ‘The Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987’ shall be preferred along with OA for consideration of the Court. Registry shall issue order in this regard. (iii). The cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon Mr. Jagdish Solanki, President, Income-tax Contingent Employee’s Union, Jodhpur shall be deposited by him in Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that after producing receipt of aforesaid cost, he can approach this Tribunal. (iv). Certified copy of this order be placed in all connected matters.” (4 of 5) [CW-3798/2019] After passing the order dated 24.08.2018, a review petition was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2018. By way of filing the present writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders dated 24.08.2018 and 27.09.2018 passed by the Tribunal. Mr. T.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the members of the association have authorised the President by way of a resolution Annexure-6 annexed with the writ petition to prosecute their cause before the Courts of law. The members of the association have resolved to agitate the grievance of the members through Shri T.C. Gupta who is extending the service pro bono. There is no reason to disbelieve the resolution and the authorisation made by the members of the association to file the OA before the Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal are per se illegal. Shri Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department has brought to our notice that the order passed by the Tribunal on 24.08.2018 was a common order passed in OA No.47/2017 as well as in OA No.48/2017. He also informs that a writ petition preferred against the order passed in OA No.47/2017 being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3786/2019 was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.5.2019 by this Court. He further submits that since a common order was passed on 24.08.2018 in OA No.47/2017 and 48/2017, the findings of the Tribunal were common in both the OAs and the writ petition assailing the validity of the same attained finality in writ petition No.3786/2019 which (5 of 5) [CW-3798/2019] has been dismissed as withdrawn, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the same ground. We have considered the submissions made at the bar. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the requisite documents were not filed by the petitioner in compliance of Rule 7 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 and therefore, the finding arrived at by the tribunal appears to be justified. We have also gone through the Annexure-6 as annexed with the petition and observe that the same is simply on a plain paper without having any details about the office of the union or the office bearers of the said union. The Annexure-6 does not inspire confidence in us about the veracity and authenticity of the same. We also note that the Tribunal has mentioned about the individual OAs having been preferred by the employees for the redressal of the same grievance. Even otherwise, we note that by a common order, if two OAs have been decided against which a writ petition No.3786/2019 was preferred and the same has been dismissed by this Court, then the findings in the common order of the Tribunal have attained finality, more particularly, when no liberty to agitate the issue in this petition has been sought for. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J 44-praveen/- "