Gauhati High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Page No.# 2/7 on 2 January, 2020
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010184432007
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 4676/2007
1:UNION OF INDIA and ORS
REP. BY THE SECY, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-1
2: THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GHY-11.
3: THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GHY-11.
4: THE CONTROLLER OF STORES
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GHY-11.
5: THE DY. CONTROLLER OF STORES
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GHY-11.
6: THE DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES
SR. MATERIALS MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
NEW BONGAIGAON
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/7
1:THE GENERAL SECY. RAIL MAZDOOR UNION and ORS
27/B REST CAMP, PANDU, GHY-12, ASSAM.
2:SRI T.B. BASUMATARY
DEPOT STORE KEEPER-I
UNDER SENIOR MATERIALS MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
NEW BONGAIGAON
Advocate for the Petitioner :
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH order (Oral) 02-01-2020 By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 28.03.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, Assam in Reference Case No.17 of 2004.
2. This petition was admitted on 12.09.2007 by issuing Rule and when the matter was taken up again on 05.11.2007, this Court passed an order directing the learned counsel for the petitioners to ascertain this Court as to whether in terms of the impugned award, the direction contained therein had been implemented in the meanwhile or not.
3. There is nothing on record, however, as to whether the award had been implemented or not. Be that as it may, apparently the petitioners did not take any steps for issuance of notice and on 17.09.2014 when the matter was taken up, this Court made the observation Page No.# 3/7 that the petitioners had not taken any steps for issuance of notice upon the respondent no.1 and since, the matter was pending since the year 2007 and despite several opportunities being granted earlier, the petitioners had not taken steps, as such, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. After dismissal of the writ petition as mentioned above, Miscellaneous Case being MC No.37/2017 was filed for restoration of the writ petition. Ultimately, this Court allowed the said miscellaneous application vide order dated 20.11.2019 by restoring the writ petition. Though Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Rly is present but none appears for the respondents.
5. I have heard Mr. B.N. Googi, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Rly and perused the materials available on record.
6. From the pleadings it appears that the matter pertains to claim made by the respondent no.2, namely, Shri T.B. Basumatary, who was earlier serving as the Depot Stores Keeper-I under Senior Materials Manager, N.F. Railway, New Bongaigaon, who had raised the claim before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati for restoring seniority and grant of promotional benefits with effect from 01.07.1979 and accordingly, for fixation of the promotional benefits in the grade of Depot Stores Keeper-II & Depot Stores Keeper-I with retrospective effect etc. The said respondent no.2 joined service in the Railways with effect from 15.07.1965 in the Stores Department of the then District Controller of Stores/ New Bongaigaon, now Senior Materials Manager/ N.F. Railway/ New Bongaigaon and he was thereafter promoted to the post of Ward Keeper on 29.06.1979. Thereafter, subsequently he was promoted to the post of Depot Stores Keeper-II to Depot Stores Keeper-I with effect Page No.# 4/7 from 22.08.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that however, abruptly in the year 1994 the Management changed his seniority as Depot Stores Keeper Grade-III after about 15 years of his service, that too, without observing the recasting of seniority rules and by issuing notices to the affected parties, but simply on the basis of a representation submitted by one Shri P.C. Kalita, Depot Stores Keeper-I. The said claim was resisted by the Railway authorities by filing a written statement stating that the respondent no.2 did not belong to SC Community as claimed by him, but he belonged to ST Community and there were 2 senior persons above him, namely, Mr. J.N. Saikia and Mr. S.K. Lama and as such, he had been wrongly given the promotion and when the representation was received from Shri P.C. Kalita, the matter was examined and necessary corrective measure was taken.
7. The matter was considered by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati and the following issue was framed:
"Whether the action of the management of N.F. Railway Maligaon, Guwahati-11 in down grading the seniority of Shri T.B. Basumatary in the seniority list of 7/7/1997 and denying of incidental promotional benefits to Shri Basumatry is justified? If not, what relief Shri Basumatary is entitled?"
8. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the learned Tribunal made the following observation as stated in Para-7 of the award that the workman i.e. the respondent no.2 belonged to ST Community and he joined N.F.Railway on 15.07.1965. The learned Tribunal also noted that the workman was promoted to the post of Ward Keeper on 07.02.1981. The learned Tribunal also made a finding in para-8 of the award that as the petitioner belonged to ST Community, he was entitled to the benefit under Roster Formula 40, but the Management failed to explain categorically and arithmetically the seniority list of Page No.# 5/7 SC & ST which was prepared and the benefit that was given to the workman was modified after six years without notifying the same. The learned Tribunal also gave a specific finding that there was no fault on the part of the workman as he had been continuously working and accordingly, got his promotion. The learned Tribunal further observed that the workman should not be adversely affected because of the change in the seniority list published after six years. The learned Tribunal also noted that the fault may be on the part of the Management and the workman who has already retired from service should not be denied the benefits and accordingly, the learned Tribunal directed that the respondent no.2 workman would be entitled to all the benefits as he had enjoyed on the basis of the promotion on ad-hoc arrangement and directed as follows:
"10. Under the above facts and circumstances in my opinion the Management has not done proper justice to a senior workman. For the ends of natural justice he is entitled to all the benefits as he enjoyed on the basis of the promotion on ad-hoc arrangement. The Railway Management has to arrange to give him the benefit accordingly, in the result the Schedule is decided against the N.F. Railway and in favour of the workman. The workman is entitled to get all the benefits as he was enjoyed on promotion on ad-hoc arrangements."
9. Being aggrieved by the said award the present petition has been filed. Following grounds have taken in this petition to challenge the said award:
(i) That the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue in view of Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
(ii) That the respondent no.2 is not the workman in terms of the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
(iii) That the administrative had the right to make any correction of any administrative error and that the award was contrary to the materials on record.
Page No.# 6/7
10. This Court, however, is not making any observations as regards the said issues raised as no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. However, this Court has observed that the award was made in the year 2006 and at the time of making the award the respondent no.2 appeared to have retired from service, as mentioned in Para-9 of the award. An observation was also made by the learned Tribunal that before the changes were affected to the seniority list, the workman was not notified about the same. This Court also has noted that the award pertains to grant of promotional benefits which the workman has already enjoyed and for continuation of the same.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that even if certain benefits were given, the said benefits would confined to the said workman only and, that too, which the workman had already enjoyed and as such, it would not cause undue hardship to the Management, considering the fact that the matter pertains to certain benefits given to the respondent no.2 sometime during the year 1990.
12. This Court has also noted that though the N.F. Rly has raised the issue that the respondent no.2 is not a workman in terms of the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the said objection was never raised before the learned Tribunal either during the oral submission or in the written statement filed by the Management.
13. Further, as regards, the claim of the petitioners that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction in view of Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it may be noted that merely because the Administrative Tribunal may have a jurisdiction, it would not oust the jurisdiction of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 if the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are attracted.
Page No.# 7/7
14. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, leaving the issues raised in the petition open to be decided in any other proceeding.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant