Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 169 (GAU)

UNION OF INDIA v. GENERAL SECY

2014-02-11

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the Union of India (Railways) of WP(C) 5167 of 2010 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 08.09.2011passed by the learned Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge (writ court) dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and in consequence upheld the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether writ court (Single judge) was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition and in turn was justified in upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal? The appellant is the Union of India (N F Railways) whereas the respondents claims themselves to be the employees of the NF Railway. The case of the respondents (employees) in short was that they were working as the employees of one Railway Cooperative Society since 30.11.1982. According to them, the railway had framed one policy and had issued one circular dated 30.5.2000 persuant to the policy providing herein that all the employees working in railway cooperative societies would be absorbed in the railway services subject to employee fulfilling minimum standard qualification prescribed in the policy/circular. Since the respondents were not absorbed in the railway services despite their willingness given as also they fulfilling the qualification prescribed, and hence a dispute was raised by the respondent with the appellant for granting them the relief of their absorption in railway service. Since the appellant did not accede to the respondents prayer and hence the State (competent government) referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question that was referred to the Tribunal was as to whether respondents were entitled/eligible for being absorbed in the services of Railways and if so, on what basis and what reliefs they were entitled to claim from the appellant in case if they are held eligible? It is this issue, which was adjudicated by the Tribunal between the parties. Evidence was adduced. The Tribunal answered the reference in respondent’s favour and held that respondents were entitled to be absorbed in the services of the appellant in terms of the appellant’s policy/circular made in that behalf. The appellant felt aggrieved filed the writ petition against the award. It is this issue, which was adjudicated by the Tribunal between the parties. Evidence was adduced. The Tribunal answered the reference in respondent’s favour and held that respondents were entitled to be absorbed in the services of the appellant in terms of the appellant’s policy/circular made in that behalf. The appellant felt aggrieved filed the writ petition against the award. By impugned order, the writ court (Single Judge) dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and upheld the award. It is against this order, the writ petitioner i.e Union of India (Railway) has filed this intra court appeal. Heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal has no merit. In our considered opinion, no fault can be noticed in the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the writ court in the impugned order. It was not disputed that the respondent’s did fulfill the criteria laid down in the policy/circular and hence were entitled to claim its benefit for their absorption in the Railway services. This was a question of fact and it was accordingly examined by the Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the parties and decided in respondent’s favour as under:- “As per the aforesaid Notification, the conditions precedent for absorbing staff of quasi-administrative offices/organizations which admittedly includes the respondent society are that such staff should be on the roll continuously for a period of at least three years as on 10.06.1997 and were still on roll, subject to the fulfillment of prescribed educational qualification required for Grade-'D' posts and that such staff should have been engaged within the prescribed age limit. The question which falls for consideration is whether the two workmen fulfill these twin conditions. The findings of the Tribunal is that the date of birth of Sri Dharmeswar Pathak is 30.10.1962 and his age as on 01.01.1982 was 20 years one month one day. The Tribunal also found that he passed the HSLC examination in the year 1978. These findings are undoubtedly reached by him on the basis of the certificate of the HSLC examination of the workmen concerned who passed out from Rangia Boys Higher Secondary School in the year 1978. The Tribunal also found that he passed the HSLC examination in the year 1978. These findings are undoubtedly reached by him on the basis of the certificate of the HSLC examination of the workmen concerned who passed out from Rangia Boys Higher Secondary School in the year 1978. Similarly, the workmen Sri Sibo Prasad Bhattacharjee was also found to be born on 06.03.1956 and was 26 years 8 months 7 days when he was engaged as Salesman in the Rangia Consumer Cooperative Society. This conclusion is supported by the certificate of HSLC examination in the year 1974 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Thus, on the findings of the Tribunal are that these two workmen are educational qualified and were still within the age limit when they were recruited as Salesman by the Rangia Consumer Cooperative Society. I have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to point out any defect in these findings recorded by the Tribunal, but he is still unable to do so. In my opinion, the findings of the Tribunal on these aspects of the matter do not suffer from any perversity. On the contrary, they are based on evidence i.e. certificates of HSLC examination. Once these findings have been arrived at and are not assailable, there is no difficulty in holding that the cases of these two workmen are squarely covered by the Circular dated 30.05.2000. Under the circumstances, the impugned Award of the Tribunal directing the petitioners to absorb Sri Sibo Prasad Bhattacharjee and Sri Dharmeswar Pathak in Group-'D' posts in the NF Railway does not call for the interference of this Court.” Apart from the fact that the aforesaid finding of fact was binding on the writ court, yet it went into this factual question in its writ jurisdiction and while concurring with the finding of the tribunal upheld the same. When the respondents fulfilled the required qualifications prescribed and it was again examined on the facts by the writ court and when the appellant was not in a position to point out any jurisdictional error in such finding then we find no case to take any other view then the one taken by the two courts except to uphold the same. Though learned counsel for the appellant made attempt to assail the impugned order on some factual submissions such as non joinder of management of society in the reference, etc, but we are not impressed by these technical submissions. In our view, they do not affect the merits of the issue decided by the tribunal and writ court. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.