P.L. KANTHA RAO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                                                                ..


A                            P.L. KANTHA RAO AND ORS.
                                         v.
                            STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                                     JANUARY 13, 1995

    B                     [K RAl\fASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.)
                               _L ____ --~
                                 I
              A.P. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985-Secs. 29 & 29A-Swpe
         of-Execution. of ordei-Enforcement--:'Proceeding"-Meaning of.
                                                                 ~   ',

    C            Petitioners had filed a petition befo..;; the Administrative Tribunal
        · which allowed the same. For its implementation, the petitioners filed a writ
          petitio~ in the High Court which directed them: to" approach the Ad·
          ministrative Tribunal to get an enforcement order under Para 8(5) of the
          Presidential Order. After obtaining       a  certificate to this effect, the
          petitioners moved the Chief Judge; City Civil Court, Hyderabad "hich
          directed its implementation. The order in the execution came to be chat-
          Ienged by the respondents in the High Court. ..

               TI1e High Court held that under Sec. 29 of the Act, the execution is
         by way of a proceeding thereby attracting Sections 29 and 29·A of the Act.
    E    It further held that as the present Tribunal had been constituted under
                 -   " -              I                    - -   . --
         the Act, the petitioners were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the
         Tribunal f~renforcement of the order passed by the erstwhile Administra-
         tive Tribunal. .

               Dismissi,;g the petition, this Court
    F
              HELD : Enforcement of the order is a "proceeding" within the
     . meaning of the A.P. Administrative Tribunals Act and also as broadly
       understood. Jurisdiction to adjudicate under the provisions of the Act had
       been expressly taken out from the Civil Courts and the High Court a·nd
       conferred upon the Tribunal constitl.<ted under the Act. Thus, the execution
    G petition filed hi the civil court would not lie and the petitioners could avail
       the 'femedy of enforcement before the Tribunal constituted under the Act
       and Roles. (242-E-F] ·

               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition No.
    H    23415 of 1994.
                                              240

•
                   P.L. KANTHA RAO v. STATE OF {\.P.                       241

     Fron the .Judgment and Order dated 15.6.94 of the Andhra Pradesh             A
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3708 of 1993.

       H.S. Gururaja Rao, Seshagiri Rao and S. Muralidhar for the
Petitioners.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :                            B

       This petition is filed against the order of a Single Judge of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated 15.6.94, made in C.R.P. No. 3708/93. The
petitioners filed R.P. No. 986/84 in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal con-
stituted under the Presidential Order 1985, pursuant to the power under C
Article 371-D. The Tribunal by its order dated March 19, 1986, allowed
their petition. For its implementation the petitioners filed a writ petition in
the High Court in which by order dated 6.3.87 the High Court directed to
approach the Administrative Tribunal to seek an order under para 8(5) of
the Preside.1tial Order for its enforcement. On obtaining the certificate
from the Tribunal on March 9, 1987, the petitioners filed E.P. No. 4/89 in D
the court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. When the Chief
Judge directed its implementation, the order in the execution came to be
challenged in the High Court. The learned Single Jadge in the impugned
order held that under s.29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 (for
short, 'the Act'), the execution is by way of a proceeding and that "therefore,   E
Sections 29 and 29-A of the Act get attracted. It was also held that as the
present A.P. Administrative Tribunal came to be constituted under the
Act, the petitioners are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
for enforcement of the order passed by the erstwhile administrative
tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has beed filed.
                                                                                  F
        After perusing the relevant provisions and the order of the High
Court, we are of the view that the High Court is right in its conclusion that
it is a proceeding under ss.29 and 29-A of the Act and that the petitioners
could avail of the remedy of enforcement before the Administrative
Tribunal constituted under the Act. The relevant portion of s.29 reads thus:      G
        "...... .... other proceeding pending bdore any court or other
        authority immediately before the date of e!>tablishment of a
        Tribunal under this Act, being a .... :.... by proceeding the cause; of
        action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had
        arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such          H
    242                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A            Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal".

    The word 'proceeding' engrafted in s.29 must be understood in a broader             .(_ ,,
    perspective. The word 'proceeding' would depend upon the scope of the
    enactment wherein the expression is used with reference to a particular
    context where it occurs. In may mean a course of action for enforcing a
B   legal right. In the journey of litigation, there are several stages, one of which
    is the realisation of the judicial adjudication which attained finality. The
    word 'proceed' though has not been defined under s.29, it is a comprehen-
    sive term. We are not concerned with the constitutionality of the Tribunal          _.. ,_
    and conferment of powers in it under the Act. For the purpose of the case,
C   we proceed upon the premise of the Act being valid.

            The right to adjudicate the dispute arising from the service condi-
    tions of the employees of the State has been expressly taken out from the
    jurisdiction of the civil court and the High Court, except of this court under
    Article 136 and has been conferred upon the Tribunal constituted under
D   the Act. The right to enforce the order of a Tribunal is incidental to the
    right to claim the relief relating to the service conditions of the employees.      -¥~
    Having divested the jurisdiction of the civil courts to adjudicate these
    disputes, the Act did not intend to confer jurisdiction in the civil court of
    the execution of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the term 'proceeding'
E   in s.29 is a very wide term to mean a prescribed course of action to enforce
    the legal right. It indicates the prescribed mode in which the judicial
    business is conducted. The execution is a step in the judicial process. It
    seeks to enforce the final order to realise the result of the adjudication.
    Therefore, it is an integral part of the order passed by the Tribunal which
    was abolished and that new Tribunal came to be constituted under the Act.
F   Therefore, the Tribunal constituted under the Act gets jurisdiction and
    power to enforce the orders passed by the Tribunal and which attained
    finality.

          The High Court, therefore, is right in its conclusion though for
G different reasons that the "· :ecution Petition before the Civil Court would
    not lie. The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to
    approach the AP. Administrative Tribunal to have the order passed by the
    erstwhile Administrative Tribunal enforced in accordance with the proce-
    dure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.

H A.G.                                                          Petition dismissed.