1990 INSC 0372
                          Bihar Census Employees Welfare Association and Others

                                                           Vs

                                             Union of India and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1992 of 1990

                                   (M. N. Venkatachaliah, M. M. Punchhi JJ)

                                                      16.08.1990

                                                        ORDER

1. "The Bihar Census Employees Welfare Association" moved an application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (Act 13 of
1985) and appears to have sought leave to sue in a representative capacity. Applicant 1 before the
Tribunal was the said Association and applicants 2 and 3 were stated to be its Secretary and Vice
President respectively.

2. The Tribunal did not examine the merits of the dispute raised in the application but proceeded to
dismiss the application in limine on the view it held that, having regard to the provisions of the Act,
a representative action was not maintainable.

3. It is not necessary to go into the questions that stem from the proposition which the Tribunal
stated. The issue has some ramifications and runs into certain theoretical thickets requiring an
examination of the Constitution, the scope of its jurisdiction and related questions. It is not
necessary to go into these aspects.

4. Sri Jaya Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal
did not consider whether the application even as constituted did not conform to and satisfy the
requirements of sub-rule (5)(b) of Rule 4 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1987.
Learned counsel stated that sub-rule (5)(b) of Rule 4 would indicate that, apart altogether from the
question whether the principle and discipline of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code was
attracted or not, the applications as brought and the array of applicants therein clearly satisfied the
requirements of the statute. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India
fairly stated that this aspect requires to be examined or re-examined by the Tribunal. As both
learned counsel commend a remit of the matter, we set aside the order dated May 7, 1986 made by
the Tribunal dismissing appellants' application and remit the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh
consideration of the question whether the application, as constituted, conformed to sub-rule (5)(b) of
Rule 4 and was accordingly maintainable or not.

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

</html