LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-137

SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. S DHARANI

Decided On December 08, 2006
SOUTHERN RAILWAY Appellant
V/S
S. DHARANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the first writ petitioner is the Southern Railway represented by its General Manager and the second writ petitioner is the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli. The first respondent in all these writ petitions are all workmen, working as Stations Masters. They had approached the second respondent Central Government Labour Court at Chennai with Claim Petitions filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the INdustrial Disputes Act [for short 'I.D. Act].

(2.) THEIR claim petitions were taken on file by the second respondent Labour Court as C.C.P. Nos.55 to 68 of 1989. In respect of the claimants in 1, 2, 4, 7 to 12 and 14, the claim was for the leave salary for the period those workmen went on Medical Leave and the period was between 26.3.1988 to 04.4.1988. In respect of the claimant, viz., E.N. Parameswaran, first respondent / workman in W.P.No.5179 of 2000 (arising out of C.C.P. No.57 of 1989), the claim relates to the period of leave from 23.02.1983 to 05.03.1983. In respect of the workman M. Ramani, the first respondent in W.P.No.5182 of 2000 (arising out of CCP No.60 of 1989), the claim consists of five different periods from 01.5.1985 to 21.02.1987. Though these petitions were filed as early as 1989, the counter statements were filed by the writ petitioner Department only on 16.6.1991 and an additional counter was filed on 05.8.1992.

(3.) AS in all the writ petitions, the amount claimed is very meagre, these matters were sent to the Lok Adalat dealing with the labour matters by this Court. Before the Lok Adalat held on 18.11.2006, the officers of the Department were not willing to pay the amount as computed by the Labour Court even though the amounts involved excepting in one case were ranging from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- only and it was informed to the Lok Adalat that since the issue related to the policy of the Organisation, it must be heard judicially. Therefore, once again, the matters were directed to be posted before the Court.