Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Claims Involving Contractual Employees Engaged via Private Entities

Eighteen applicants, led by Manzoor Ali, filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization of their services and equal pay for equal work

The applicants were engaged as security guards and housekeeping staff

While they claimed to work under the direct control and supervision of Respondent No. 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd.), they were officially engaged as contract laborers through Respondent No. 2 (M/s Rakshak Securitas Private Limited)

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an Original Application involving contract labor engaged by a private security entity

The rule dictates that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to matters involving "service matters" of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or notified authorities; it does not extend to private entities or contractual arrangements where the employer (in this case, a private security firm) does not fall within the Tribunal's ambit

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Bench analyzed the employment structure of the applicants to determine its jurisdictional competence. It noted that the applicants were formally engaged as contract labor through Respondent No. 2, M/s Rakshak Securitas Private Limited

The Chairman observed that because Respondent No. 2 is a private entity (a "Private Limited" company) located in Dwarka, New Delhi, it does not fall under the statutory jurisdiction of the Tribunal

Consequently, even though the applicants sought relief against a public sector undertaking (SAIL), the nature of their engagement through an excluded private respondent precluded the Tribunal from adjudicating the dispute

The OA was dismissed with no order as to costs

The court clarified that the applicants' remedy lies before an appropriate alternative forum in accordance with the law