VISWANATH TUKARAM Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special civil application has been referred to a Full Bench by Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Gokhale. No question has been formulated by the learned Judges, but it seems that they took the view that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Anthony Almeda v. Taylor, 58 Bom LR 899: (AIR 1956 Bom 737) (A), requires reconsideration inasmuch as a decision of the Supreme Court in D'costa v Patel, 57 Bom LR 738: ( (S) AIR 1055 SC 412) (B), seems to the learned Judges inconsistent with the view taken of the law in Almeda's case (A ).

(2.) NOW, curiously enough, the Advocate General emphatically asserts before us that not only the decision of the Supreme Court is not inconsistent with Almeda's case (A), but that the decision of the Supreme Court supports and reinforces the view taken by this Court in Almeda's case (A), and Mr. Singhvi not so emphatically also agrees that it is difficult to find any inconsistency between the judgment of the Supreme Court and the judgment in Almeda's case (A ). But inasmuch as the matter has been referred to the Full Bench and the matter has been argued at great length and the Advocate General tells us that a decision should be given by us because a large number of petitions are pending and the decision of which would be governed by the view we take in this Full Bench, we must proceed to decide the question referred to us.

(3.) NOW, to state the facts briefly, the petitioner was employed as a Khalasi in the Loco Shed of the Central Railway at Kalyan. He was employed on 3rd October 1947. On 26th October 1949 he was arrested on a charge under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and placed before the First Class Magistrate at Kalyan, and it appears that he was released on bail on 4th November 1949. On 6th May 1953 he was discharged by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate gave him, as it were, a clean bill and said in his judgment that there would be no objection to his being reinstated by the Railway Authorities. He resumed his work -- and we are using a neutral expression -- on 20th October 1953, and he filed a petition before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act claiming wages from the period 25th October 1949 to 19th October 1953. The Authority decreed his claim. There was an appeal to the District Court and the learned District Judge took the view that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. Thereupon the employee filed a petition under the Constitution before the Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Gokhale and it is this Bench that has referred the matter to us.