DIVAKAR K MOREY vs LABOUR on 29 October 2026

1. Union of India Represented by the Chairman, M/s.Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai-400094.

2. The Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, NEW DELHI 110 001.

3. The Union of India, Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Anushakti Bhavan, CSM Marg, Mumbai -400001.

Respondents

(By Advocate Shri Padmanabha Holla for Respondent No.1 and Shri Vishnu Bhat for Respondents No.2 & 3)

S SARALADEVI

O R D E R (ORAL) PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:  “Call for the records relating to framing of NPCIL (EPF) Rules, 1990 vide Annexure A-2

 To Strike down the clauses No. 17.2, 15.2, 16.2,1.3, 18.4 provisions which are made in contravention to the parent Acts viz PROVIDENT FUND ACT 1925 & EPF & M.P ACT 1952.

 To issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing the respondents to release the amount illegally deducted from the P.F Account of the applicant towards the Motor Car Advance, Salary Advance, LTC advance etc along with cumulative interest & penal interest right from date of termination 31/05/2001 up to date of actual payment as per statutory provisions and recognizing this as a violation of his Fundamental Rights as outlined in the Constitution, specifically under Articles 14 & 21, is warranted, given the detrimental effect it has on his livelihood.

S SARALADEVI

 Pass such order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

2. The applicant is an Ex Senior Manager of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (‘NPCIL’ for short), whose services came to be terminated on 31.05.2001. It is the grievance of the applicant that the NPCIL authorities made several deductions from his PF account and partially settled the account after his termination based on NPCIL Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme, 1990, which is totally contradictory to the statutes i.e., Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Provident Fund Rules, 1985. Hence this OA.

3. At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this OA before this Tribunal, submitting that the NPCIL has not been notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985 (‘Act’ for short). Reliance is placed on the judgment of Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA Nos.135/2023 and connected matter dated 17.02.2025 – Pawan Saini vs. NPCIL and others.

S SARALADEVI

4. Applicant, party in person placing reliance on the order dated 23.08.2018 passed in OA No.370/2017 in his own case submitted that an objection was raised regarding maintainability of the OA. Despite the same, OA was entertained by directing the respondents to provide one consolidated date-wise statement of the total PF amount due and paid to the applicant to make it abundantly clear that there are no further outstanding dues, if the accounts reveal that any amount is still due to be paid, the same shall be paid to the applicant with interest at the prevalent PF interest rate.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. In the earlier proceedings referred to supra, no adjudication has been made on the maintainability of OA before this Tribunal having regard to the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal though observed that the applicant has not given convincing argument to support that this Tribunal has jurisdiction except by saying that there has been a decision by Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1488/1993 - P.Raveendran vs. NPCIL, which was challenged by the NPCIL before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.15509/1998, proceeded to pass an order taking a

S SARALADEVI

lenient view and in consideration of the fact that the applicant is a senior citizen, who has been agitating his case for long.

7. Section 14(2) of the Act specifically provides that on notification issued by the Central Government, the provisions of the Act would apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification to local or other authorities within the territory of the India or under the control of the Government of India and to Corporations or Societies owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation or Society controlled or owned by a State Government. It is not in dispute that NPCIL is not notified under Section 14(2) as per the notifications issued by the Central Government from time to time. In the absence of notification, certainly this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction pertaining to the service matters of employees working in the NPCIL. Considering these aspects Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.135/2023 and connected matter, supra, has held thus:

“4. Considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record. The issue involved in the instant matter has already been decided earlier in the above referred matter by this bench

S SARALADEVI

declining to entertain service disputes of employees of NPCIL.

4.1. Chapter III of Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As per Section 14 (2) of the CAT ACT, the Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to Corporation or Societies owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or Corporation or Society controlled or owned by a State Government. As per provisions of sub-section (3) save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or Corporation or Societies all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable immediate before that date by all Courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to (a) and (b).

4.2 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central Government has time to time issued notification including the name of Corporation or Societies and other authorities in the Schedule to the Act. It is an admitted position that with regard to NPCIL no notification has been issued by the Central Government. In the absence of notification, this

S SARALADEVI

tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the service matters of employees working in the NPCIL. Administrative Control of the Department of Atomic Energy over the Corporation does not make any difference. The Department of Atomic Energy and Corporation are both different entities. Corporation does not mean department. Under the Department of Energy so many Corporations may be there. Without notification under section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, Corporation does not come within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

4.3 In none of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the applicant, the issue of exercising the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal over NPCIL has been considered and decided on merits. Merely entertaining the service matter of the employees of the NPCIL by the coordinate bench of this tribunal does not make it a binding principle upon this tribunal to entertain the above issue.

4.4 In view of the above, both these OAs are not maintainable before this tribunal. Registry is directed to return back the paper books to the applicant.”

8. We find no reason to differ from the aforesaid view expressed by the Jodhpur Bench.

S SARALADEVI

9. Order passed by this Tribunal earlier taking a lenient view would not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits in the absence of any notification issued by the Central Government under Section 14(2) of the Act.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the OA is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Accordingly, OA stands dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the applicant to seek redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

sd/-

sd/-

(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

sd.

S SARALADEVI