#railways Archives - Prime Legal

Title: C. Sekar and Others. Vs. Union of India.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

W.P.No.15918 of 2019.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Krishnakumar. And P.B. Balaji.

Facts:

The petitioners were engaged as casual labourers during the year 1983 under the Permanent Way Inspectors (presently Senior Section Engineers/P.Way) in the Engineering Department, Tiruchirapally Division, Southern Railway. The petitioners state that 345 casual labourers including the petitioners were brought into the supplementary casual labour register as on 2003. The grievance of the petitioners is that according to the Railway Board’s practice, all classified vacancies that became available upto 31.12.1982 should be filled from among casual labourers and substitutes, with a special relaxation in respect of Class IV vacancies in workshops due to special requirement of workshops and that despite being eligible the respondents have not regularized the petitioners, who were all casual labourers. The respondents filed a counter before the Tribunal denying the claim of the petitioners that they were all casual labourers. The Tribunal held that the petitioners never worked as casual labourers in the Railways and therefore they cannot claim any legal right to the status of casual labourers and consequently seek absorption. So, the petitioner approached this court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioners vehemently contended before the court that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners’ claim that they were all entitled for absorption and in such process the Tribunal has not considered several instructions on the said subject that came to be issued by the respondent themselves and that when several casual labourers were included for appointment to the post of Trackman, the petitioners were also entitled for being absorbed. The respondents submits that the impugned order does not require any interference as admittedly the petitioners were not casual labourers and they have not been able to establish the said factum even before the Tribunal by producing any reliable or relevant piece of evidence and he therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The documents that are relied on by the petitioners are certificates issued by the Permanent Way Inspector, Mayiladuthurai Junction, Southern Railway Mayavaram. On a perusal of the various certificates that have been issued to the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners were engaged as labourers for a brief period of time viz., between 28.12.1983 and 04.01.1984 to meet flood/emergency situation. The said certificates clearly spells out that the concerned labourers would not be entitled for engagement as casual labourers and that they will have no claim for being considered for engagement as such, in future, as a matter of course. It is also mentioned that no medical examination was carried out. Thus, it can be seen that the respondents have made it abundantly clear that the petitioners cannot claim to be casual labourers.

The petitioners have not produced any other documents before the Tribunal to establish their legal right to claim absorption. The Tribunal has also rightly considered all these factors and found that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers and even from the relevant documents it was noticed that they were not even listed in the casual labour service camp. The certificates issued to the petitioners and relied on by the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as before us does not give us a slightest indication that the petitioners were employed as casual labourers. On the other hand, it only clearly shows that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers. Thus, the court held that the order of the Tribunal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

Title: Sita Devi & Ors. vs UOI

Decided: 22.03.2023

Pronounced: 02.06.2023

FAO 46/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

Introduction

The Delhi High court set aside the order of Railway claims tribunal and remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation in terms of the Act and for which purpose the matter shall be listed at the first instance before the Tribunal on 10.07.2023. it is to be decided and compensation is to be paid within two weeks thereafter.

Facts of the case

It was Vinod Kumar i.e., deceased undertook a train journey on 12.06.2017 from Shahdara to Faridabad by a local train and when the train reached at KM 1514/13-11 JNC Yard between Faridabad and Tughlaqabad Station, the deceased fell down from the train on account of sudden jerk and push of the passengers and died at the spot. The journey ticket along with other articles of the deceased including his bag were also lost.

A perusal of the record would show that the first information on the incident was received in the form of memo of Station Master of Faridabad Railway Station at about 9:00 am on 12.06.2017. It mentions about the dead body lying at KM 1514/13-11.

Based on the reports and testimony submitted, On 10.02.2021, the principal bench of Railway Claims Tribunal passed an order dismissing the claims of the appellants.

Court Analysis and Decision

The delhi high court was expedient to refer to the judgement of Supreme court at Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 para 29, Where it was held that, “mere presence of dead body on the railway tracks will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger Initial burden will FAO 46/2022 Page 3 of 4 be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”

The court decided to avoid the DRM report for taking into consideration as it is being filed after 14 months of the incident especially in the view of final report submitted by the SHO, court referred to the judgement of its coordinate bench in Bhola v. Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13486. Accordingly, the deceased is held to be a bona fide passenger and the incident to be an ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation in terms of the Act and for which purpose the matter shall be listed at the first instance before the Tribunal on 10.07.2023. Let the compensation amount be paid to the appellants/claimants within two weeks thereafter.

Written by – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to review the judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

Madras High Court upholds the tribunal decision that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers under Railways.

The Delhi High Court set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal and granted compensation to the appellants.