THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Railways by this writ petition impugns the award dated 19th April, 2004 of the Labour court holding the order of termination of services of the respondent workman by the petitioner Railways to be illegal and bad and directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with the petitioner Railways along with 25% back wages from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement. This Court vide order dated 16th July, 2004, while issuing notice of the petition stayed the operation of the award. The said order remains in force till date. No application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act has been filed by the respondent workman.

(2.) THE respondent workman was employed with the petitioner Railways as a substitute Safaiwala, according to the petitioner Railways from 15th March, 1978 and according to the respondent workman since 16th May, 1977. The respondent workman claims that he in the course of performance of his duties was exposed to the sun during the Solar Eclipse in the year 1980 and owing whereto he started losing his eye sight; he claims that inspite of treatment in the Railway Dispensary, Railway Hospital and other hospitals, his eye sight continued to deteriorate. The respondent workman was examined by the Medical Board of the petitioner Railways on 13th May, 1983 when he was found medically unfit for all categories of employment with the petitioner Railways. The respondent workman was discharged from service on 13th May, 1983. The respondent workman on or about 21st March, 1990 challenged the order dated 13th May, 1983 of his discharge from service before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal however vide its order dated 24th December, 1991 though finding that the respondent was working on a regular scale of pay and that his total effective service with the petitioner Railways was for the period from March, 1978 to January/February, 1980 when he lost his eye sight and though of the view that since the respondent was medically de -categorized, he should have been regularized in service after due screening, dismissed the petition of the respondent workman for the reason of the respondent workman having failed to agitate his case at the appropriate time; the Tribunal did not find any satisfactory ground to condone the delay for the reason of the respondent workman having not explained the same properly. The application of the respondent workman was thus dismissed.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent workman having elected to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and having not elected to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, cannot be permitted now to invoke afresh the jurisdiction of the Labour Court after having been unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal; it is contended that if the respondent workman is so allowed, it would encourage forum shopping. It is further contended that the respondent workman could not have invoked the jurisdiction of both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Labour Court for the same cause of action. It is further the plea of the petitioner Railways that the respondent workman did not challenge the finding of the Medical Board and which had attained finality and thus had no right to challenge the consequent order of his termination. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act were not available to the respondent workman once he had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.