Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 286 (ALL)

Union of India (UOI) v. Ram Kripal Singh

2005-02-17

V.C.MISRA

body2005
V. C. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) SRI Lalji Sinha and Sri Amit Sthalker learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. J. N. Tiwari senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C. B. Gupta, Advocate, are present. ( 2 ) THE above said writ petitions arise out of common order dated 28. 7. 1997 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) passed by the Labour Court-respondent No. 6 allowing the applications of respondents-workmen 1 to 5 Ram Kripal Singh, Smt. Munni Devi, Sadanand, Sheo Charan Lal and Shamsher Singh who had filed their separate applications under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central) hereinafter referred to as the Act, which were numbered as Misc. Case Nos. 12/91, 13/91, 14/91, 15/91 and 16/91, all the said Misc. cases were clubbed together and decided with Misc. Case No. 12/91 as the leading case. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondents-workmen 1 to 5 were Assistant Diesel driver in the Railways and had been reverted to the post of Fireman Grade-C vide order dated 22. 6. 1971 issued by the Railway Administration and in their place persons junior to them; akhtar Ali, Nathu, Munna Khan, Murli Rai and Hargyan Ram who were Fireman Grade-A were promoted to the post of Assistant Diesel Driver. Being aggrieved by the said reversion order, the respondents 1 to 5 filed a writ petition before this Court, which was rejected. Special Appeal was filed against it before the Honble Supreme Court which by its order dated 18. 11. 1990 quashed the reversion order dated 22. 6. 1971 passed by the Railway Administration-petitioner and directed the said workmen to be considered for regularisation on the diesel side and were also directed to be paid all consequential benefits. When for a quite long time the orders of the honble Supreme Court dated 18. 11. 1980 were not complied with and acted upon by the petitioner the said workmen-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 again filed a writ petition before this Court, which vide its order dated 28. 11. 1985 allowed the writ petition with observation and accepted the claim of the workmen. The Railway administration-petitioner thereafter prepared a list of seniority. However, since, Akhtar Ali who was junior to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 again filed a writ petition before this Court, which vide its order dated 28. 11. 1985 allowed the writ petition with observation and accepted the claim of the workmen. The Railway administration-petitioner thereafter prepared a list of seniority. However, since, Akhtar Ali who was junior to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5-workmen after promotion was being paid salary more than them, the respondents claimed salary accordingly and asked for the payment of the arrears calculated on the basis of the proforma fixation and consequential benefits during the period they had been wrongly restrained from being promoted. Being aggrieved due to non-payment of the amount claimed by them the respondents 1 to 5-workmen, filed the above said applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Act before the Labour Court-respondent No. 6 which after hearing both the parties found their claim to be correct and directed the petitioners to make the payment of the same within a period of three months along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- as expenses of the case to each workman. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 28. 7. 1997 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) along with its corrigendum-dated 4. 8. 1997 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) the petitioners filed the Writ petition No. 33402 of 1997 against all the respondents 1 to 5-workmen. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 that the petitioners deliberately wrongly wrote the name of respondent No. 1-workman as Ram Kripal Singh instead of Kripal Singh to avoid the reporting of the caveat application filed by it. However, no ad interim order was granted by this court in the said writ petition. Having failed to obtain an interim order in this writ petition, the petitioners again filed 4 separate writ petitions against the same impugned order dated 28. 7. 1997 numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36520 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Shamsher singh and Anr. , Misc. Writ Petition No. 36522 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Munni devi and Ors. , Misc. Writ Petition No. 36524 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Sadanand and ors. and Misc. Writ Petition No. 36527 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Lal and anr. v. Shamsher singh and Anr. , Misc. Writ Petition No. 36522 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Munni devi and Ors. , Misc. Writ Petition No. 36524 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Sadanand and ors. and Misc. Writ Petition No. 36527 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Lal and anr. concealing the fact that the above said Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 had already been filed challenging the same order passed by the respondent No. 6 in which all the respondents had been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and also the fact that no ad-interim order had been passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner in the earlier Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997. All these writ petitions were filed wrongly and falsely mentioning therein that they were the first writ petition filed against the said order dated 28. 7. 1997. In the aforesaid subsequent 4 writ petitions the stay order was granted by this Court on 29. 10. 1997 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount as ordered by the Labour Court within two weeks with the Registrar of the High Court and that on deposit of the said amount the order of the Labour Court dated 28. 7. 1997 shall remain in abeyance. The petitioner deposited the said amount with delay but did not deposit the amount of Rs. 1,000/- in each case, which was ordered to be paid as costs to the respondents-workmen. The petitioner thereafter again filed a second application in the Writ petition No. 33402 of 1997 concealing all the material facts with reference to the said 4 writ petitions and also obtained the stay order dated 26. 3. 1998 in the said writ petition. ( 5 ) AFTER the exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, this Court passed the order dated 28. 4. 1999 in Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 and in the connected Writ Petition No. 36522 of 1997 which is quoted below : "a preliminary objection has been raised by Shri J. N. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, that Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 was filed by the Union of india and others impleading Shri Ram Kripal Singh, Smt. Munni Devi, Shri Sadanand, Shri Shiv charan Lal and Shri Shamsher Singh as respondents 1 to 5 respectively. The writ petition was filed on 29. 9. 1997 and on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it was directed to be listed in the next cause list by order dated 1. 10. 1997 was passed by the petitioner on 28. 10. 1997 filed these writ petitions, i. e. (1) Writ Petition No. 36522 of 1997 impleading Smt. Munni Devi as respondent No. 1, (2) Writ Petition No. 36524 of 1997 impleading Shri Sadanand as respondent No. 1, (3) Writ Petition No, 36527 of 1997 impleading Shri Shiv Charan Lal as respondent No. 1 and (4) Writ Petition No. 36520 of 1997 impleading Shri Shamsher Singh as respondent No. 1 (the record of this case was not sent today despite being shown in the cause list, but it was considered after the particulars were furnished by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ). In paragraph 29 of Writ Petition No. 36524 of 1997 it has been stated that this is the first writ petition of the petitioners. In paragraph 29 again of Writ Petition No. 36527 of 1997 similar statement has been made. In Writ Petition No. 36522 of 1997 also the averments are to the same effect. In Writ Petition No. 36520 of 1997 the averments have been made in this regard. These petitioners then came up for admission before the Bench of Honble mr. Justice S. H. A. Raza who admitted the petitioners by order dated 29. 10. 1997 and granted interim order to the effect that the petitioners shall deposit the amount as ordered under Sections 6h and 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, within two weeks with the Registrar of this Court. On the deposit being made by the petitioners, the order-dated 28. 7. 1997 was ordered to remain in abeyance. The said order was allowed to be passed in all the four petitions without disclosing that earlier Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 (Union of India and Ors. v. Shri Ram Kripal Singh and Ors.) had already been filed by the petitioners impleading the above respondents. It was also not prayed that the Writ Petition No, 33402 of 1997 was to be connected or to be listed along with the said petitions. It also appears that after the order dated 29. 10. v. Shri Ram Kripal Singh and Ors.) had already been filed by the petitioners impleading the above respondents. It was also not prayed that the Writ Petition No, 33402 of 1997 was to be connected or to be listed along with the said petitions. It also appears that after the order dated 29. 10. 1997 was passed on Writ petition No. 33402 of 1997 it was got listed on 26. 3. 1998 and similar order was passed as passed in Writ Petition Nos. 36520 of 1997, 36522 of 1997, 36524 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 36527 of 1997. The manner in which these petitions have been filed and the interim orders obtained by the petitioners fully establishes that the petitioners have not come with clean hands and they have tried to mislead this Court in obtaining the interim order. I may also indicate that such incorrect action which appears to mislead the Court is not expected from the petitioners who are no less than the Union of India and their counsel Shri B. B. Paul. They are expected to be more careful and particular before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being a Court of equity and good conscience. I am prima facie satisfied that for the above reasons the interim orders in all the aforesaid writ petitions are liable to be vacated. Accordingly the interim orders dated 29. 10. 1997 and 26. 3. 1998 are vacated. Rejoinder affidavit filed today may be taken on record. As the affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, the petitions be listed for final disposal before the appropriate Bench. A copy of this order be sent to the Divisional Railway Manager for enquiry and necessary action against the erring persons. " ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the interim order was vacated and it was also directed by this Court that the divisional Railway Manager shall institute an inquiry and take necessary action against the erring persons but no action seems to have been taken against the erring official at all. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner after filing Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 intentionally and purposely removed the word ram appearing before the name of Kripal singh in the petition in Courts file without seeking leave of this Court. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner after filing Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 intentionally and purposely removed the word ram appearing before the name of Kripal singh in the petition in Courts file without seeking leave of this Court. The above said facts clearly prove that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands and he deliberately and intentionally played fraud on the Court. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 had prayed that the petitioners are liable to be punished for playing fraud and committing perjury. It has also been submitted that the respondents under the said circumstances are entitled to receive heavy costs/compensation from the petitioners for having wrongly evaded the payment to the workmen to which they were entitled to. It has also been submitted that even after the stay orders were vacated by this Court vide its order dated 28. 4. 1999 yet the amount lying deposited with the Registrar, High Court had not been released in favour of the respondents-workmen inspite of the pendency of the applications moved by the respondents in their writ petitions for release of the amount in their favour. The petitioner has succeeded in depriving the poor respondents-workmen from getting their rightful claim/amount even after they had retired. During the pendency of the writ petitions sadanand and Shamsher Singh respondents-workmen died and in their places the names of their legal heirs and representatives have been substituted. ( 8 ) I have looked into the record of the case in detail and heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. From the perusal of the record, I find that the petitioners have intentionally, purposely and deliberately misled this Court as has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents-workmen. For this the petitioners deserve not only to be punished for false and mis-statements made with mal intention and fraudulently obtaining interim orders by this Court but are also liable to make good by way of compensation to the poor respondents-workmen for depriving them of payment of their amount as well as for causing unmeasured harassment to them and their family due to the wrongful actions of the erring officials of the Railway administration. The respondent No. 6 Labour Court after thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings and relevant material and evidence brought on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned award dated 28. 7. 1997 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition ). The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned award suffers from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. Moreso, the said findings of fact, being based on relevant material on record, is not open to challenge before this court while exercising its special and extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 9 ) THE Registrar General is directed to release forthwith the amount deposited in each writ petition under the orders of this Court with it in favour of the respondents-workmen or their legal heirs as the case may be. The petitioners shall pay the compensation which in the present circumstances is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- payable to each workman or their legal heirs as the case may be and shall also pay the cost of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to each of the respondents with interest and the amount of wages claimed by the respondents and computed by the respondent No. 6-Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the passing of the impugned order dated 28. 7. 1997 till the date of the payment by the petitioner which shall be paid within a period of three month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the petitioner. With the above said observations/ directions, the writ petition is dismissed. . .