IDAN PURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 23rd November, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short `labour court') whereby the learned labour Court while rejecting the reference held that non grant of compassionate allowance to the petitioner workman by respondent management was legal and justified and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

(2.) THE claim set up by the petitioner before the learned labour Court was that he was appointed with the Railways in Carriage Wagon Workshop, Jodhpur on 25th April, 1956 and was removed from their service on 27th February, 1971. At the time of removal he was serving with the respondents on the post of Skilled Fitter on monthly salary of Rs. 256/ -. THE petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 9th October 1991 for compassionate allowance. When nothing was done, he approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short `cat'), which by its judgment dated 7th September, 1994 directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in V. Prakashan vs. D. R. M. Southern Railway, Hoogli & Ors. THE respondents thereafter by the order dated 13th May, 1995 rejected the representation of the petitioner. In these circumstances, he made an application to the appropriate Government which made a reference to the learned labour Court and thereafter the aforesaid award was passed.

(3.) IN the present case, even though the petitioner as per his own showing was dismissed from service on 27th February, 1971. He for the first time submitted an application to the respondents enormously delayed on 9th October, 1991 for grant of compassionate allowances. While on the one hand, the respondents asserted that the petitioner did not opt the pension scheme as per the requirement of Railway Board's circular referred to above, on the other hand, the petitioner submitted that he did submit such option and in support thereof he claim to have produced two affidavits of his fellow employees namely Bhanwar Lal and Gopal Das before the labour Court. The learned labour Court however has given finding that no such affidavits were produced before it nor those witnesses have been produced in evidence. It would thus be evident that the petitioner before the learned labour Court failed to prove any findings with regard to his option. The learned labour Court therefore rightly concluded that the petitioner was not a pension optee. IN the circumstance therefore when the petitioner did not opt for pension, the Rules of 1950 cannot be held applicable to his case.