#tribunal Archives - Page 2 of 2

20 Sep

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

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # .JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR, # JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI., #Casual labourers, #MadrasHighCourt, #railways, #tribunal

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

24 Jul

Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed seeking impugning of an order by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DART) for not complying to the conditions

Prime Legal

Blog #debt, #debtrecovery, #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #tribunal, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: SZF EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.

Date of Decision: 17.07.2023

+ W.P.(C) 9408/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed seeking impugning of an order by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DART) for not complying to the conditions of making the necessary pre-deposit.

Facts of the case

The petitioners have brought this case to contest an order made on July 14, 2023, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 113/2023, SZF Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank, by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter “the DRAT”).

The petitioners filed the aforementioned appeal in response to an order dated 22.06.2023, issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereafter “the DRT”). In that order, the DRT expressed the preliminary opinion that the respondent bank’s actions in accordance with the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter “the SARFAESI Act”) were not irregular.

The DRT had further denied the petitioners’ request to prevent the responding bank and court receiver from seizing the subject property. There is no disputing that the petitioners used the credit facilities and failed to repay them, as the Ld. DRT had acknowledged. In essence, the petitioners feel wronged by the property’s auction. The petitioners claim that Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereafter referred to as “the Rules”) was broken by the auction. According to the petitioners, the aforementioned Rule mandates that the auction buyer pay 25% of the total auction price (including any earnest money put) within 24 hours after the sale.

Analysis of the court

Rule 9(3) of the Rules’ straightforward wording makes it obvious that the deadline for paying 25% of the selling price must be calculated starting with the sale of an immovable property. The first phrase of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, “on every sale of movable property,” makes this clear. In this instance, the auction took place online on the MSTC platform on June 8, 2023.

Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the auction purchaser”) had entered the bidding process and had made the highest bid of 6,60,38,000/-. We do not see any merit in the petitioners’ claim that the property auction procedure was faulty. After having said the foregoing, it is important to note that the impugned decision, which the DRAT made denying to hear the petitioners’ appeal, is not based on the merits but rather on the claim that the petitioners had broken the requirement to pay the required pre-deposit. We don’t see any reason to change the contested order. Concededly, the petitioners’ chosen appeal could not be considered by the DRAT unless they made the required predeposit. It is common knowledge that the appellant has no legal entitlement to be given further time to make the deposit.

The necessary pre-deposit was reportedly not made. Consequently, we believe that the petitioners’ appeal was properly denied. This Court has also been told that PNB has acquired ownership of the disputed property.

The petition cannot be awarded any remedy. The identical is rejected.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

CLick to view the Judgement

10 Jul

Delhi High Court granted compensation and set aside the order of the railway tribunal.

Prime Legal

Blog #compansation, #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #primelegal, #railwaycompensation, #tribunal, #untowardincident, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: RAM PRATAP & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF RAILWAY)

Reserved on: 15.03.2023

Pronounced on: 05.07.2023

FAO 172/2014

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

Introduction

Delhi High court set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA(IIu)008/2013 and granted compensation to the appellants under section 23 of the railway claims tribunal act 1987.

Facts of the case

The appellants seek to challenge the decision made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA(IIu)008/2013, which dismissed the claim application they submitted. This appeal was filed in accordance with Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

The appellants’ knowledgeable counsel argued that the Tribunal had rejected the appellants’ claim even though the two travel tickets (for the forward and return voyage) had been found on the deceased individual.

In contrast, the respondent’s learned CGSC argued that the Tribunal correctly rejected the assertions that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the event an untoward incident occurred while defending the disputed order.

Analysis of the court

A review of the file would also demonstrate that the tickets were confirmed and discovered to have been issued on June 5, 2012, at 12:18. Even though the trip was started on that day with considerable delay, The appellants claimed in their testimony that after buying the tickets, the deceased went home for some personal matters before returning to travel later that evening. In the deceased should not be denied the status of having been a genuine passenger just because there was a small window of time between the time the tickets were issued and the journey was actually taken, according to this Court’s FAO 172/2014 Page 3 of 4 opinion. In addition, the Tribunal’s assertion that the claim averments are implausible since neither the deceased’s fellow passengers nor the authorities were informed of the occurrence is false and should be rejected given the circumstances of the case.

In light of the foregoing reasoning, this Court believes that the Tribunal erred in denying the appellants’ claim application. As a result, the appeal is granted and the contested ruling is reversed.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

clcik to view the judgement

1 2