Zahur Mulla vs M/O LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

The applicant has sought for the following reliefs:- “a. Quash the impugned Notice No. Adm.I/4(01)/2017-CLC dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure- A13) and the Rules for LDCE-2018 dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure-A14) issued by Respondent No.2, and all consequential proceedings, including the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 31.10.2026, as being contrary to the Labour

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

Enforcement Officer (Central) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2018;

b. Declare that, on and after 11.10.2018, the post of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) can be filled only in accordance with the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2018, and that no recruitment through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination survives under the said Rules;

c. Direct Respondents No. 1 and 2 to fill up the vacancies of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), including the 14 vacancies referred to in Annexure- A13, strictly in accordance with the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2018;

d. Direct Respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the Applicant’s representation dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure-A10) by a reasoned and speaking order, and direct Respondents No. 4 and 5 to consider the Applicant’s representation dated 25.08.2026 (Annexure-A12), within such time as this Hon’ble Tribunal may fix;

e. Award costs of this application; and

f. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Indisputably, the applicant is a retired employee as Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) [LEO(C)] coming under the Ministry of Labour and Employment. Earlier, the applicant had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 446/2011 challenging the Departmental Competitive Examination, 2012 contending that it is contrary to the recommendations of the sixth pay commission, which was

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja dismissed and the same was challenged in Writ Petition No. 15893/2012 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Wherein, the Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2013 confirming the order passed by this Tribunal.

3. Again the applicant had preferred OA No. 1790/2018 before this Tribunal seeking for similar reliefs, which came to be allowed vide order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure – A7). Writ Petition No. 3512/2021 (S-CAT) filed by the respondents against the said order was allowed setting aside the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1790/2018 vide order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure – A8). The relevant portion of the said order in Writ Petition No. 3512/2021 reads as follows:-

“11. We are in respectful agreement with the decision of this Court in W.P. No.15893/2012. Therefore, CAT’s order is not sustainable in law, firstly because, the issue involved in the said writ petition and this writ petition is precisely one and the same. Secondly because, first respondent has appeared in the examination and therefore, he is a fence-sitter.

12. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(a) Writ petition is allowed.

(b) The order dated July 16, 2019 in O.A. No.170/01790/2018 passed by the CAT, is set-aside and the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.”

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

4. The said order has reached finality. That being the position, the applicant, who retired on 31.05.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation, as the retired employee has filed this OA seeking similar reliefs mainly on the ground that a new cause of action has arisen due to the Rules for Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination - 2018 issued on 01.10.2026 (Annexure – A14). In the guise of challenging the said order (Annexure – A14), the applicant is seeking for quashing the said Annexure – A14 and all consequential proceedings including the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on 31.10.2026.

5. Further, an interim order has been sought for, to stay, until further orders, the results of LDCE held on 31.10.2026 and to restrain the respondents from convening the DPC, declaring the results, or issuing any promotion orders on the basis of LDCE, 2018 held on 31.10.2026, pending final decision on this OA.

6. We are not inclined to entertain this OA. Firstly, for the reason that the applicant is not an aggrieved person to prefer this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as such the applicant has no locus standi to file this application. Secondly, the applicant having suffered an order in the earlier rounds of litigation cannot agitate the same like an old wine

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja in a new bottle. The two orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court referred to supra, having been reached finality, there being no cause of action for the applicant to file this OA and the same is also being hit by the doctrine of Res judicata, OA is not maintainable.

7. Accordingly, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ms/

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja