CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION Vs. KESHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by Special Leave has been preferred by the Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railways against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 15th June, 2002 in Writ Appeal No. 16 of 1999. The learned Single Judge, against whose judgment the aforesaid appeal was preferred, had set aside the award of the Tribunal and held that the services of the Respondent were illegally terminated. He was therefore, entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. While affirming the finding of the learned Single Judge that the services of the Respondent were illegally terminated, the Division Bench modified the direction with regard, to payment of consequential benefits by directing that only 50% of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of death or date of superannuation of the Respondent, whichever is earlier, shall be paid.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Respondent was appointed on 16.1.1975 as a causal-laborer by the Railways on payment of daily wages of Rs. 4/- which was later enhanced to Rs. 10.40. The case of the Appellant was that on 1.11.1977 the Respondent abandoned his work and did not report for duty thereafter. Consequently he was marked absent in the muster roll and being a casual employee his name was deleted from the muster roll after five weeks continued absence from the alleged date of abandonment. About a year and 5 months later, on 4th April, 1979, the Respondent served a notice upon the Railways alleging that his services had been illegally terminated. In the said notice issued through an Advocate the Respondent stated that he had been appointed by an order of appointment dated 16.7.1975 as a Clerical Mate in the Southern Railways, Bangalore, on monthly wages of Rs. 332.95. He was also issued a Casual Labour Service Card. It was alleged that despite satisfactory service rendered by him, he was illegally prevented from doing work without assigning any reason whatsoever. This amounted to wrongful termination of service and therefore, the Respondent was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages.

(3.) The reply of the Southern Railways is dated 11th April, 1979 in which it was stated that he had been engaged as an extra labour (Casual Labour) in the category of Clerical Mate on daily wage basis at Rs. 4/- per day. He was deputed to work under the Inspector of Works (Doubling), Bangalore City. He was unauthorisedly absent from duty on his own accord from 1.11.1977. On 18.11.1977 he only came to receive his wages upto 31.10.1977. He made a request on 25.11.1977 to be re-engaged and though the Head Clerk (Stores) was willing to engage him as a fresh entrant on dally wage, he declined to accept the engagement. Thereafter he never turned up for work. Since he was unauthorisedly absenting himself from duty, under Rule 2505 of the Railway Manual his engagement stood automatically terminated. In view of the aforesaid rule the Respondent had no justifiable claim either for re-engagement or for back wages. Since the Respondent had voluntarily abandoned his service there was no question of issuance of notice to him.