Karnataka HC Paves Way For Restructuring Of Central Public Works Dept. [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court has given a go ahead to the Union government for restructuring the Central Public Works Department. It quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing the Union Government to call for inputs from all stakeholders, including employees of the Central Public Works Department, before moving ahead with restructuring of the Department.

A division bench of Justice L Narayanan Swamy and Justice R Devdas held that the tribunal could not have disposed off the petition filed by the Central Public Works Department Association, challenging the orders of the department. "Without whispering the jurisdiction, maintainability of the application and the locus of applicants, we may observe that the tribunal has not acted in the interest of Justice," the bench said.

The bench dismissed the application made by the Association before the tribunal and orders passed subsequently on them. It also modified to the extent the undertaking dated July 25, 2019, given by the Director General CPWD, before the Tribunal, stating that all previous orders passed by the department in the course of restructuring would not be acted upon. The bench said "The said undertaking shall not bind the petitioners (Government).

Case background:

The Association filed an application challenging an order dated March 25, 2019, passed by the Director General, CPWD, seeking to revise the organizational structure of CPWD, as directed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, which had acted on the suggestions made by Implementation Committee and recommendation of a consultant known as 'Ernst and Young.

By an ex-parte order the tribunal stayed the order of CPWD. The petitioners Union of India, CPWD and Director General CPWD, Prakash Singh approached the Karnataka High Court against the stay. The high court requested the Tribunal to hear both the parties, particularly on the question of jurisdiction and locus of the applicants before the Tribunal and thereafterconsider the interim prayer made by the applicants.

The association though filed a contempt petition before the tribunal. During the hearing the tribunal called upon the personal presence of Singh. It is alleged that under duress, he prepared an undertaking stating that orders subsequent to 04.06.2019 will be withdrawn. The tribunal passed an order On July 25, accepting the undertaking given by him and dropped the contempt proceedings. The contemners were set free. This order was also challenged before the high court.

Arguments made by Union of India.

Additional Solicitor General of India, K M Natrajan submitted that there cannot be a better example of the dignity and majesty of judiciary being lowered to a sorry state of affairs. The proceedings and both the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal is visibly prejudiced, biased, actuated by irrelevant consideration and wholly without jurisdiction.

"Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, contend that the jurisdiction power and authority of the Tribunal is restricted to matters concerning 'services' under the Union of India, or any Corporation or society owned or controlled by the Central Government. The word 'service matters' has been defined in Section 3(q) and in terms of the said definition, the prayer made by the respondents herein before the Tribunal does not fall within the definition therefore the Tribunal should have rejected the application." It is a settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres fall within the exclusive domain of the employer.

Association opposed the plea:

Advocate P.A.Kulkarni, objected to the petition challenging the orders passed in contempt proceedings. He said, "The power to punish for contempt has been envisaged on the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Tribunals Act, bestowing, same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Further, in view of an appeal provided under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act to the Supreme Court, a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 is barred."

On maintainability of order challenging contempt petition.

"As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore (supra), an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemner is appealable under Section 19. As a result, we hold that challenging the orders of the Tribunal in the contempt proceedings, is maintainable. Even otherwise, the plenary powers of this Court in exercising judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, encompassing the territories within its jurisdiction is not in derogation of the power conferred on the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32, as provided in Clause (4) of Article 226 of the Constitution."

The court on whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an application which sought to question an order passed by a competent authority, seeking to revise the organizational structure of CPWD and whether it is a service matter as per the tribunal act.

It said "What is noticeable is that the Union of India is in the process of revising the organizational structure of CPWD. In the light of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the matter of structuring or restructuring or reorganizing the Department, which is a policy matter, within the exclusive domain of the employer, there cannot be judicial review. It is also evident that unless and until the restructuring is made, an employee cannot rush to the Courts complaining of any grievance, since the restructuring has not taken shape and the matter lies premature. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides."

It added "We find that the memorandum of application does not raise any such specific contention that would point out to infringement of any particular right or benefit already earned, acquired or accrued. We hold that the original Application was not maintainable and the prayers made therein could neither have been considered nor could be granted."

Click here to download the Order