Gujarat High Court
Union Of India And Anr. vs Bachu Badia on 2 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2001)3GLR2734
Author: A.M. Kapadia
Bench: A.M. Kapadia
JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, J.
1. Union of India (Railways) being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench on 2-4-1998, has approached this Court.
2. It is contended by learned Advocates Mr. Yajnik and Mr. Sheth appearing for the Railways that the Tribunal has committed serious error in considering the case of the original petitioner as the application was barred by limitation. It is pointed out to us from the order that the case of the applicant, as set out in the application, was of oral termination with effect from 20-5-1985. The Tribunal was moved on 8-3-1989, after a period of about four years, along with an application for condonation of delay being M.A. No. 717 of 1989. The Tribunal has observed that, "The applicant has not furnished any satisfactory explanation for the long delay in filing this application challenging the termination order. The M.A., is rejected and consequently prayer (A) of Para 7 regarding quashing of termination order is rejected." It is submitted that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the delay has not been properly explained and as a consequence of which the application was rejected, then it was not open for the Tribunal to proceed further with the matter.
3. Prima fade, the submissions are very attractive. Once the application for condonation of delay is rejected, there is no question of entertaining main application. In the instant case, the applicant was permitted to amend the application tendered before the Tribunal. Para (AA) inserted in the application after amendment reads as under :
"(AA) Alternatively be pleased to direct the respondents to absorb the applicant in service from the date of his junior's absorption in pursuant to Section 25-H of the I. D. Act, 1947 and in pursuant to the Railway Board's absorption scheme."
4. The Tribunal, after rejecting the prayer as set out in para (A) of the prayer clause, proceeded further with the prayer mentioned in para (AA) reproduced hereinabove. It was pointed out to the Tribunal that the applicant was a retrenched workman and if there is a question of re-employment of retrenched workmen, then it was incumbent on the employer to follow the procedure laid down in Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.
*** *** ***
5. It is averred in the petition that juniors were re-employed and no opportunity was given to the original applicant. Section 25-H mandates the employer to give an opportunity to the retrenched employees. It is the duty of the employer to offer re-employment. The method of intimation is prescribed in Rule 78 referred to hereinabove. Admittedly, the retrenched workmen junior to the original applicant were re-employed in the instant case. No intimation about the vacancy was given by a registered post to the original applicant -the retrenched workman eligible to be considered -- at the address given by him at the time of his retrenchment and was not re-employed.
6. The original application was of oral termination. However, subsequently, the application was amended. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal thought it proper to entertain the application, and so far as prayer clause (A) is concerned, that prayer being not within the prescribed period, the Tribunal has not granted that prayer. So far as the prayer covered by clause (AA) of the prayer clause is concerned, as it is not disputed before us that the said prayer was within time, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly entertained the petition and it requires no interference by this Court. In an application which was not within the time stipulated, the objection ought to have been raised while seeking permission to amend the application. As no objection was raised and the applicant herein acquiesced in the order allowing the amendment, now it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in entertaining the application. Hence, petition stands rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
7. Rule discharged.