S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. The respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner-Society. During the course of his employment, he appears to have suffered injuries and an application was, accordingly, filed before the Commissioner under the Workmens' Compensation Act for compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course of such employment. The application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,360/- as compensation to respondent No.1 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till realisation. The award of compensation by the Commissioner under the Workmens' Compensation Act has now been challenged by filing this petition.
3. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since in respect of the service matters concerning the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan only the Central Administrative Tribunal had the jurisdiction, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act could not entertain the application of respondent No.1 for grant of compensation to the said respondent. Reliance for this is placed on the definition of 'service matters' in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 'Service matters' under the Act have been defined to mean matters as respects remuneration, pension, retirement benefits, tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, leave and disciplinary matters. It also means 'any other matter whatsoever'. It is submitted that since the 'service matters' under Section 3(q) would also mean 'any other matter whatsoever' it will include the matter about the grant of compensation under the Workmens' Compensation Act.
4. I am not in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as whether a person is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment is not within his service conditions. It is a right given to a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Such compensation is awarded only under the provisions of Workmens' Compensation Act or under torts. It is not a condition of service for the violation of which the Central Administrative Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide under the Administrative Tribunals Act. It is a statutory right under the Workmens' Compensation Act and does not come within the definition of 'service matters' under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Central Administrative Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to decide the same. I do not find any merits in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. Interim orders passed earlier stand vacated.
6. The amount already deposited in this Court be paid to respondent No.1.