ASST ENGINEER SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. SYEDALAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Southern Railway Administration represented by the Assistant Engineer, Southern Railway, Olavakkot, and the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Olavakkot, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court allowing O. P. No. 1077/76 filed by the 1st respondent herein, quashing the order Ext. P5 and directing that the writ petitioner should be given the amount claimed by him as wages for the period from 3-4-1969 to 25-8-1971.

(2.) The writ petitioner was employed as a casual labourer under the Assistant Engineer, Southern Railway, Olavakkot -- Ist respondent in the O. P. -- from 3-10-1968 till 31-7-1969. On 31-7-1969 his services were terminated on the ground of his having been found to be medically unfit. Subsequently, he was provided with alternate employment in a different capacity, for which he was considered to be sufficiently medically fit, with effect from 20-8-1969 and he worked in the said capacity till 25-8-1971. A dispute arose between the writ petitioner and the Railway Administration on the question of the petitioner's entitlement to payment of wages at the Central Pay Commission rates as made applicable to the casual labourers with certain modifications. According to the petitioner he was entitled to count the period of service put in by him as casual labourer from 3-10-1968 to 31-7-1969 for the purpose of payment of his wages in the post in which he was subsequently reemployed on a casual basis with effect from 20-8-1969. According to the Railway Administration only the continuous service put in by the petitioner in the new capacity, in which he was reemployed with effect from 20-8-1969 could be reckoned for the purpose of his eligibility for payment of wages at the Central Pay Commission scales. This dispute was taken up by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Quilon under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the benefits due to him in accordance with law for the period from 3-4-1969 to 25-8-1971 The Labour Court, by its order Ext. P5, rejected the petitioner's claim and the O P. -- O.P. No. 1077/76 -- was thereafter filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext. P5 and praying for a direction to the Railway Administration through the present appellants, for payment of the wages covered by his claim put forward before the Labour Court.

(3.) The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the sole ground that the petitioner's case was covered by the provision contained in Para. 2612 of the Railway Establishment Manual, which reads as follows: