RAM JOGI Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, the aforesaid two writ petitions are being disposed off as both arise out of the same award, one petition by the management and the other petition by the workmen. The respondents in W.P. No. 5730/05 namely B. Rama Rao, P. Sundar Rao (now dead), M.B. Satya Rao, K.T. Naidu and petitioners in W.P. No. 4197/05 namely Ram Jogi, Ganesh Yadav and Jeevan, while continuing in the employment of the Management of the Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur as Gangmen were terminated from service vide order dated 02/06/86 by the Management on the allegation that they had obtained service by producing fake and forged certificate of their past employment with Management. A dispute having arisen on such termination, initially, the workmen approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, held that the employees being workmen, should take recourse to the remedy of adjudication of industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'The Act of 1947'). The petition was disposed off with such liberty. Thereafter, the aforesaid employees raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings eventually ended in a failure. However, despite repeated prayer for making reference of the dispute to the Tribunal, no reference was made by the appropriate Government. The workmen again approached the Tribunal but the Tribunal refused to entertain. A writ petition was thereafter preferred before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh wherein direction was issued to the appropriate Government to refer dispute to the Tribunal. Vide order dated 02/07/92, the Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal on the following terms of reference--

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid award to the extent it directs reinstatement of respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4, writ petition No. 5730/05 has been filed by the Management. It be noted that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 2-P. Sunder Rao died and his legal representatives were allowed to be substituted as respondents 2(i), (ii) and (iii).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management argued that even if the termination is found to be illegal or unsustainable, the respondent/Workmen are only entitled to payment of lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement into service as they were not permanent employees appointed to any sanctioned post of the Management.