Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Union Of India Through The D.R.M. Central Railway Jhansi v. Mahendra Singh Through Surendra Singh Adv. And Others - WRIT - C No. 29435 of 1997 [2004] RD-AH 966 (29 September 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.51

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29435 of 1997

Union of India, through DRM, Central Rly., Jhansi Vs. Mahendra Singh and others


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Sri Govind Saran learned counsel for the petitioner.

1. This writ petition has been filed claiming relief for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order and Judgment dated 15.11.1996 annexure-3 to the writ petition passed by the respondent no.3, by which the respondent no.3 has directed the reinstatement with back wages from the date of reference of the respondents 1,2 & 3 at the rate on which the respondent no.1 was drawing his pay at the time of his termination/retrenchment on the ground that the said impugned order is a non speaking, and cryptic order, has been passed without application of mind, and without discussing the evidence and the pleadings in a very cursory manner and thus, the award was illegal, arbitrary and perverse, and is liable to be set aside.

2. I have perused the record and looked into the claim petition filed by the workman annexed to the writ petition as annexure-1 wherein the detail facts have been narrated. I have also looked into the written statement in rebuttal filed by the petitioner and annexed as annexure-2 to the petitioner. The objections in this written statement are mainly on legal grounds that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply in the case of the petitioner since the railway administration is not an industries and no appeal lies before the tribunal and any application so filed, is barred under Section 147 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and, therefore, the claim petition should be dismissed. In para-7 of this written statement, the petitioner has categorically stated that the applicant had admitted, that he was a temporary employee with the petitioner, and his services could be terminated at any time and his termination was legal and valid. In respect with the correspondence, it has also been stated that the same was of internal matter from which no right could be made out by the respondent no.1. Nothing else has been stated in the said written statement.

3. Sri Govind Saran learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed on the point that the respondent no.3 while granting the back wages has not given any reasonings nor the respondent no.1-workman is entitled for the same in view of the principles of ''no work no wages.' It is well settled that in case, if any employee has been terminated or restrained from working by an employer without any fault on the part of the employee, then under the circumstances of the case, he shall be entitled for the entire back wages for the period he has been kept away from the work by the employer along with all consequential benefits.

4. I have looked into the award and find that after thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings and material on record and the relevant evidence, the respondent no.3 has arrived at a well reasoned order dated 15.11.1990 annexure-3 to the writ petition on the basis of findings of fact, 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 perversity or any error apparent on the fact of the record. More so, the said findings of fact arrived at by the respondent no.3 on the basis of which the impugned award dated 16.11.1996 has been passed being based on relevant material on record, are not open to challenge before this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by respondent no.3 in passing the impugned order dated 6.11.1990 annexure-3 to the writ petition. In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 9.9.1997 stands vacated. No order as to costs.

September 29, 2004



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.