Judgment : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner is the widow of T.Cherian, who served the Southern Railway as a Goods Guard. She challenges the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing her application for retiral benefits due on account of her late husband. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Southern Railway. 3. Cherian was compulsorily retired with effect from 1.9.1987. That issue resulted in an industrial dispute referred for adjudication by the Government of India as per order dated 21.1.1994. The Industrial Tribunal passed an Award dated 31.8.1995 holding that the termination of the service of Cherian with effect from 1.9.1987 is illegal. It was directed that he be reinstated in service with continuity of service, backwages and all other benefits, but withholding full wages for a period of two years. Railways carried that award to the Central Administrative Tribunal, for short, the "Administrative Tribunal", constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by instituting O.A.No.447 of 1996. The Administrative Tribunal interfered with the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, and modified it clipping off the award of seven years' backwages and ordered that the reinstatement of the workman (Cherian) shall be from the date of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, without backwages. The entire period was directed to be counted for purposes of seniority, increments and pension. It was further ordered that the amount of pension paid after the order of compulsory retirement and before the date of reinstatement (the date of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal) will not be recovered from the workman. 4. Following the aforesaid order of the Administrative Tribunal, Cherian was reinstated in service, but was ordered to go for refresher course, on the premise that he was 'out of line' for nearly ten years. He filed O.A.No.991 of 1999 challenging that order. Since that was out of time, he filed M.A.No.874 of 1999 seeking condonation of delay in filing that original application. That was dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal and as a consequence, O.A.No.991 of 1999 was also dismissed. Cherian challenged that in O.P.No.8937 of 2001 before this Court. That was dismissed on 7.6.2001. Review petition against that judgment was also dismissed on 30.1.2003. 5. In the meanwhile, 31.10.2001 was the date of superannuation of Cherian. He died on 24.1.2003, that is, even while his afore-noted review petition was pending. 6. Cherian challenged that in O.P.No.8937 of 2001 before this Court. That was dismissed on 7.6.2001. Review petition against that judgment was also dismissed on 30.1.2003. 5. In the meanwhile, 31.10.2001 was the date of superannuation of Cherian. He died on 24.1.2003, that is, even while his afore-noted review petition was pending. 6. Thereafter, his widow, the petitioner herein, filed O.A.No.684 of 2003 before the Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the establishment to determine and disburse DCRG and other benefits due on account of late Cherian. The Administrative Tribunal ordered the establishment to consider the representation of the applicant and disburse the amounts due in terms of the Administrative Tribunal's order on O.A.No.447 of 1996 and Industrial Tribunal's Award on I.D.No.3 of 1994. 7. Following that, a letter dated 9.12.2003 which is Annexure-A9 in Ext.P1, was issued to Cherian's widow. There appears to have been delay in her responding to some queries raised in that letter of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. We have seen that communication dated 9.12.2003. A reading of that document shows that the Personnel Branch of the Divisional Office and the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer could not reach at, from the files, such relevant informations, that are expected to be maintained in that office in the regular course of its official business. We say this because, the intimation given to the widow of late Cherian is that "it is to be presumed that he was in continuous receipt of pension, till the date of his death on 24.01.2003 and thereafter, you may be in receipt of Family Pension". She was also advised that her late husband was not eligible for pension from the date of reinstatement to the normal date of superannuation on 31.10.2001 and that certain amounts were also due towards rent and electrical charges of the quarters. Cherian's widow, the petitioner herein, was thereby "advised to intimate whether her late husband was drawing pension for the period after reinstatement till 31.10.2001 and thereafter till his demise, and also whether she is drawing family pension from there onwards". Such information was statedly, to enable that office to process the revision of pension/family pension, as also for payment of DCRG, if any due. This communication essentially shows that the Railway establishment was unable to even know for itself, as to what was happening, or had happened, to late Cherian's file. 8. Such information was statedly, to enable that office to process the revision of pension/family pension, as also for payment of DCRG, if any due. This communication essentially shows that the Railway establishment was unable to even know for itself, as to what was happening, or had happened, to late Cherian's file. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Applications in the afore-noted O.A.No.684 of 2003 seeking further relief on the assertion that the establishment has not honoured the directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal in that original application. Ultimately, she was granted leave to withdraw the Miscellaneous Applications, without prejudice to her right to seek appropriate reliefs. She accordingly instituted O.A.No.188 of 2008 before the Administrative Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid decision of the administration and seeking directions. 9. The Administrative Tribunal, as per the order impugned in this writ petition, noted that it is quite surprising that the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer issued the letter dated 9.12.2003 to Cherian's widow. The Administrative Tribunal also noted the series of litigation between her late husband or she on the one side and the establishment on the other on issue of grant of pensionary benefits on account of late Cherian, however that, the establishment themselves were not sure whether the deceased employee had received pension or his widow had received family pension. The Administrative Tribunal further noted that such state of affairs in the Railway administration warrants serious attention of the superior officers. With all those observations, the Administrative Tribunal directed the establishment to revise the family pension of Cherian's widow with effect from the date of the death of the employee, in accordance with the recommendations of the V and VI Central Pay Commissions, if not done so far, and that arrears shall be paid. Recovery towards rent etc. for quarters was to be effected in accordance with the extant rules. 10. Cherian's widow is before us pleading that O.A.No.188 of 2008 filed by her ought to have been allowed in toto. Therein, she had sought a declaration as to the reinstatement of her late husband. She also sought that the decision contained in the communication dated 9.12.2003 of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, referred to above, be quashed. 10. Cherian's widow is before us pleading that O.A.No.188 of 2008 filed by her ought to have been allowed in toto. Therein, she had sought a declaration as to the reinstatement of her late husband. She also sought that the decision contained in the communication dated 9.12.2003 of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, referred to above, be quashed. Further direction was sought to ensure that the establishment disburses the pensionary benefits due to late Cherian in the light of the Administrative Tribunal's order on O.A.No.447 of 1996 within a time frame as may be fixed. 11. At the outset, we may note that in the course of submissions before us, we had raised a query as to the standing and validity of the Administrative Tribunal's order on O.A.No.447 of 1996 reducing the grant of reliefs by the Industrial Tribunal through its Award in I.D.No.3 of 1994. The learned counsel for the Railways said that Cherian did not carry that issue to any superior court challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal on O.A.No.447 of 1996. The pecuniary situation in which Cherian and family were placed is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for Cherian's widow, the petitioner before us, to say that Cherian would have been incapacitated by economic challenges, from access to the superior courts at that point of time. 12. To satisfy ourselves, we looked into the Award in I.D.No.3 of 1994, though that is not a matter directly arising for judicial review now. The quality of charge levelled against Cherian by the establishment that led to the disciplinary proceedings was countered by him by showing that the allegation that he had refused to supervise the shunting of the train was solely due to the failure of other workmen who were involved in the activity. We looked at it only to note that it was not a case of financial mismanagement or any act of moral turpitude. We say all these only because, we are of the firm view that the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, did not and cannot have the authority, in law, to visit an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; which could, at the best, be challenged only by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court. While questions relating to service as between a workman and the Railway establishment may fall within the pail of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an Industrial Tribunal's Award cannot be put to judicial review before the Administrative Tribunal. Remember, Section 17(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 specifically provides that the Award published under sub- section 1 of Section 17 shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever. This is subject only to Section 17A which provides limits as to time and other factors for publication of Award and modification by appropriate Government. This means that an Administrative Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has no jurisdiction to visit the Award under the Industrial Disputes Act. The jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under the Constitution of India, to visit an Award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act, is not at all available to an Administrative Tribunal. We notice this in the context of the fact that if the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on I.D.No.3 of 1994 stands, late Cherian would have been entitled to be reinstated in service with effect from 1.9.1987 and was entitled to continuity of service, backwages and all other benefits except full wages for a period of two years. That was clipped by the Administrative Tribunal by its order on O.A.No.447 of 1996. The Administrative Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to do that. In the constitutional and jurisdictional context, in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it is non est and void. 13. At this distance of time, we are more concerned with the anxiety and agony of a widow. Therefore, leaving aside all the aforesaid, we take all facts and factors noted above, and, appreciate, that on the totality of the facts and circumstances and the track record of the case, the ultimate situation is that there cannot be any way out for the establishment, but to honour the verdict it got from the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.447 of 1996. This means that Cherian should be deemed to have been reinstated with effect from 31.8.1995, i.e., the date of the Industrial Tribunal's Award, though without backwages. The entire period had to be counted for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension. This means that Cherian should be deemed to have been reinstated with effect from 31.8.1995, i.e., the date of the Industrial Tribunal's Award, though without backwages. The entire period had to be counted for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension. Any amount of pension paid after the order of compulsory retirement and before the date of reinstatement (date of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal) could not have been recovered from the workman. This direction of the Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 2nd September, 1996 in O.A.No.447 of 1996 was obtained by the Railways on their asking. It is salutary that the bare minimum is that this has to be given effect to. 14. The finding of the Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order that the Railways did not know whether amounts were paid to Cherian or his widow either towards pension or family pension is itself sufficient to hold that in issuing Annexure-A9, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer was merely washing his hands off from carrying out the directions of the Administrative Tribunal, issued at the instance of the Railways themselves. 15. The aforesaid takes us to the document produced as Annexure-A4 in Ext.P1. It is an order issued for the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer with O.O.No.T 74/96/Gds. That order says that Cherian is reinstated in service with effect from 31.8.1995 and he is posted as Goods Guard/ERM in the scale shown therein. The progression of the increments and scale is also reflected therein. All that happened is that Cherian did not join duty in terms of that order and did not proceed for the refresher course as directed therein. At the worst, it could have been a case of unauthorised absence after reinstatement. No steps were taken on any such allegation or counts of indiscipline, against Cherian, till 31.10.2001, the date of his superannuation. We may take it that he having not joined duty and worked following that order, he was not entitled to any payment till the date of his superannuation on 31.10.2001, applying the principle "no work no pay". Leave it aside. He need not be given that. But then, the Administrative Tribunal's direction in O.A.No.447 of 1996 will have to be given effect to by treating the entire period of his service for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension. Leave it aside. He need not be given that. But then, the Administrative Tribunal's direction in O.A.No.447 of 1996 will have to be given effect to by treating the entire period of his service for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension. Thereby, his due pension has to be ascertained and payment has to be effected for the period following the date of his superannuation till the date of his death, i.e., from 1.11.2001 up to January, 2003. The family pension due to the widow has to be ascertained and paid from February, 2003. We see that it is wholly unreasonable to compel the widow to establish the negative; i.e., neither Cherian nor she had received any pension or family pension. The Railways have not shown any material regarding such payment. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed as follows: i. The impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside. ii. It is directed that the pension due to Cherian shall be ascertained by treating the entire period of his service for the purpose of seniority and increments, leading to determination of such pension. Amounts due as aforesaid shall be calculated and all arrears on account of pension due to Cherian from 1.11.2001 up to January, 2003 and family pension due to the petitioner (Cherian's widow) from February, 2003 till 31.8.2013 shall be released without fail on or before 30th September, 2013. An affidavit of compliance of this direction shall be filed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer before the Registrar General of this Court, without fail, on or before 10th October, 2013. If such affidavit is not filed, let this matter be listed on the next working day. iii. The family pension which will become payable to Cherian's widow after 31.7.2013 shall be promptly released as and when each such amount becomes due from time to time. iv. Having regard to the checkered track of this litigation and the situation in which Cherian's widow is placed, we further order that no penalty whatsoever shall be imposed while recovering rent and electricity charges for occupation of the quarters till she had vacated it. v. The parties will suffer their respective costs.