Two writ petitions were filed against an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed applications by employees of the Naval Dockyard, Mumbai. The employees sought the application of Dockyard Memorandum (DM) 6/85 for grading and benefits, similar to a prior CAT order for other apprentices. The court examined whether DM 6/85 or later Dockyard Temporary Memorandums (DTMs) should apply, discussed the legal background, and considered the arguments from both sides. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the respondents, highlighting the validity of the DTMs and the delay in the petitioners' challenge.

1. Introduction

   • Both writ petitions heard together; Writ Petition No. 7103 of 2014 treated as the lead petition.

2. Tribunal’s Order and Original Applications

   • Petitioners challenge CAT order dated 26th April 2013 dismissing their applications (OA No. 180/2004 and OA No. 178/2004).

3. Relevant Facts

   • Petitioners are employees of Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.
   • Dates and details of apprenticeship, training, and employment provided.
   • Overview of Dockyard Memorandums (DM) and Dockyard Temporary Memorandums (DTM).

4. Background of Dispute

   • Application of DTM 117/99 challenged retrospectively.
   • Tribunal’s order dated 16th June 2003 applied DM 6/85 to certain apprentices.
   • Petitioners' representation for similar treatment and subsequent legal actions.

5. Tribunal’s Findings in Impugned Order

   • Tribunal’s rationale for dismissing the petitioners' applications.
   • Differences in joining dates and the applicability of DM 6/85 and DTMs.

6. Relief Sought by Petitioners

   • Quashing Tribunal’s order.
   • Application of DM 6/85 for grading and benefits.
   • Direction for consequential benefits including pay and promotions.

7. Petitioners’ Submissions

   • Argument that the Tribunal’s order was a judgment in rem.
   • Similarity with batches 60 and 62 in terms of training and employment.
   • No delay in filing applications due to continuous wrong and representation made.
   • Issue estoppel and finality of previous Tribunal order in favor of applying DM 6/85.

8. Respondents’ Submissions

   • Differences between petitioners and those in earlier cases (OA No. 989/1999).
   • Chart provided highlighting discrepancies in dates and qualifications.
   • Petitioners not similarly situated as earlier applicants benefiting from DM 6/85.

9. Conclusion

   • The document discusses the legal and factual basis of the petitions, focusing on the applicability of DM 6/85 versus later DTMs, and the procedural history of the case, highlighting the arguments and evidence presented by both parties.

10. Petitioners' Arguments

    • Duration and Training Mode Differences: Petitioners and Applicants in OA 989 of 1999 had different training durations and assessment methods.
    • Educational Qualification and Training Period: Qualifications for apprenticeships before and after 16th January 1997 differed, impacting training periods.
    • Inapplicability of Tribunal Judgment: Tribunal's judgment was not a judgment in rem and applied only to specific applicants.

11. Respondents' Arguments

    • Ceasing of DM 6/85: DM 6/85 ceased on 16th January 1997, replaced by DTM 4/97, DTM 35/97, and DTM 117/99.
    • Applicability of DTM 35/97: Concession given to batch AA-60 due to timing of DM 6/85 being replaced by DTM 35/97.
    • Authority and Powers of Admiral Superintendent: Superintendent had authority to issue DTMs which have the force of law.
    • Misleading the Tribunal: Petitioners misled the Tribunal regarding the applicability of Naval Dockyard Standing Order.

12. Delay and Laches

    • Delay in Approaching the Tribunal: Petitioners waited for the outcome of OA 989 of 1999 before filing their applications in 2004, showing a delay of 5 years.
    • Acceptance of Appointment Letters: Petitioners accepted their appointments without protest and raised objections only after five years.

13. Court's Analysis and Conclusions

    • Retrospective Applicability of DTM 117/99: Tribunal's order only addressed the retrospective application of DTM 117/99.
    • Non-Existence of DM 6/85 at Petitioners' Joining Date: DM 6/85 had ceased to exist when Petitioners joined DAS.
    • No Valid Challenge to DTMs: Petitioners did not challenge the validity of DTMs.
    • Fence Sitters: Petitioners delayed challenging DTMs, making them ineligible for relief.
    • Inapplicability of Parity Claims: Petitioners were not similarly situated to earlier batches that benefited from DM 6/85.

14. Final Decision

    • Dismissal of Petitions: The court found no merit in Petitioners' contentions and dismissed their petitions.
    • Interim Applications: Disposed of due to the dismissal of the main petitions.