Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 339 (KER)

Southern Railway Labour Union v. Union of India

2004-07-23

M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2004
Judgment :- Petitioner- a Trade Union, had espoused the cause of one R.V. Kutty who was employed as MV Driver in the General Branch of Southern Railway, Palakkad. Mr. Kutty had rendered military service for about 12 years and had been discharged on 31-12-1975. He was re-employed in the Railways on 18-8-1978 as a Traffic Porter (Khalasi) in the pay scale of Rs.196-232. It is also not disputed that since he was drawing a pay scale of Rs.205/- at the time of discharge from the Indian Army, his pay was fixed taking notice of the last pay drawn, this involved grant of two additional increments. The Railway Administration had recognized that he was drawing a pay higher than the minimum scale of pay of the post in which he was appointed. 2. However, the Union had taken a contention that it was not the admissible relief, but the number of increments he had drawn while rendering military service had to be taken notice of and the pay had to be appropriately refixed. Since the parties could not come to a settlement at the time of conciliation, Ext.P1 report had gone to the Government. By order dated 27-12-2001, the Government had declined to refer the issue, for adjudication. The reason pointed out was as follows:- “There is no illegality in the action of the management in fixation of salary of Shri. R.V. Kutty on re-employment and there is no anomaly in his pay fixation as well as there is no logic in demand of the disputant to give 12 additional increments after joining the re-employment, hence no merit.” 3. Sri. Paulson C, Varghese submits that this is a case where the Government had overstepped the jurisdiction since the legality or legality of the action of the management in the matter of fixation of pay scale should not have been considered. Government had jurisdiction only to examine as to whether or not an industrial dispute was there. It is submitted that there was a dispute in existence, and it was as to whether or not Sri. Kutty was entitled to the grant of 12 additional increments, instead a decision is evidently taken, which was not to be countenanced. 4. Government had jurisdiction only to examine as to whether or not an industrial dispute was there. It is submitted that there was a dispute in existence, and it was as to whether or not Sri. Kutty was entitled to the grant of 12 additional increments, instead a decision is evidently taken, which was not to be countenanced. 4. Counsel also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Telon Coney Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another v. State of Bihar and others [1989 (2) LIJ 558] as also the decision of this court reported in Jayanarayan v. Union of India (1997(2) KLT 204), in support of his stand. 5. Even if it is conceded that the legal proposition as above may be correct, I had enquired as to the sustainability of the claim, and expediency of a reference now. 6. Sri. Paulson C. Varghese refers to office Memorandums dated 25-11-1958 and 8-2-1983 to which reference had been made in the decision of the Supreme Court in Director General of Posts and others v. B. Ravindran and others [(1997) 1 SCC 641). The points decided, according to the counsel, squarely are applicable to the claims of Mr. Kutty as well. 7. Sri. Prabhu appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that Mr. Kutty might have been entitled to a fixation of pay taking notice of the last pay he had drawn while he was in military service and in so far as that is given, there was no legal obligation on the part of the Railway Administration to grant him 12 additional increments as claimed. He points out that no rules or circulars have been cited in support of the situation canvassed by the Union before the Labour Department. Mr. Prabhu also submits that it was not as if the Government was to act only as a rubber stamp, to refer a dispute whenever there was one. Expediency was also relevant. He refers to the later decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Gouri Sankar Chagtterjee and others v. Taxmaco Ltd and others (2002 AIR SCW 2741) and Biswas.J.M. v. N.K. Bhattacharjee (2002 (2) LLJ 523). Issues which are not live need not be referred. Also, in this case, for the first time, a dispute is raised after twenty years of re-employment, and the workman concerned has retired from service. 8. Issues which are not live need not be referred. Also, in this case, for the first time, a dispute is raised after twenty years of re-employment, and the workman concerned has retired from service. 8. Even if Ext.P2 is accepted as beyond the jurisdiction of the Government, on an ultimate analysis, I do not think it is worthwhile for the trade Union to continue the legal battle since the results are foregone as the claims are not having any statutory backing. The Original Petition is dismissed.