Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
RAJBIR SINGH – Respondent
RSA No.358 of 2015
Decided On : 04-08-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. L.C. Rajput, Adv.
The cause of action for limitation in an employment dispute arises only on the employer's refusal of alternative employment.
Headnote:
Limitation - Employment Dispute - Indian Railway Medical Manual, 1981 - Para 573 - The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing the employer to provide alternative employment and pay full wages from 1992 onwards as per railway rules. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the cause of action for limitation arises only on the refusal of alternative employment by the employer, which had not occurred in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought alternative employment after being declared medically unfit for the original job. The employer failed to provide alternative employment, leading to the plaintiff filing a suit in 1998.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing the employer to provide alternative employment and pay full wages from 1992 onwards as per railway rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to alternative employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The cause of action for limitation arises only on the refusal of alternative employment by the employer, which had not occurred in this case.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff being bound to receive a lesser amount than decreed by the trial court if the employer clears all dues within five months.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the Union of India/employer against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 23.4.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 2.7.2015; whereby the courts below have directed the appellant/employer to provide the employee/respondent/plaintiff with an alternative job either in the Railway Protection Force or in the Railways and to pay full wages to the plaintiff from 1992 onwards as per the Railways rules along with all consequential relief’s on the same post which he was holding at the time of illness till the time he is given alternative job along with interest @ 12% per annum on outstanding dues.
2. The case as set up by the respondent/plaintiff was that he had taken medical leaves originally from 20.2.1992 to 5.3.1992 but on account of his medical condition he could not report for duty and ultimately reported for duty on 8.6.1992 when he was referred to the Senior Medical Superintendent at Delhi. The Senior Medical Superintendent vide his Certificate dated 12.8.1992 certified that respondent/plaintiff is permanently medically unfit for the duties of the original post, and therefore, respondent/plaintiff should be provided suitable alternative employment as per para 573 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 1981 inasmuch as the respondent/plaintiff is fit in category B-1. Respondent/plaintiff thereafter, as per the case in the plaint, regularly approached the authorities and sought alternative employment but was not successful and hence the present suit was filed. Paras 3 and 10 of the plaint would be relevant with respect to the argument of limitation which is now urged on behalf of the appellant no.1/Union of India for the first time in this Court, and therefore, these paras are reproduced as under:-
“3. That the plaintiff while working as such AT R.P.F. post Tugalkabad Railway Station, Delhi proceeded to avail 15 days sanctioned leave from 20.2.92 to 5.3.92 and could not resume duty on 6.3.92, because he fell sick and reported his sickness with Assistant Divisional Officer (Medical)Northern Railway from 6.3.92 to 9.3.92 and consequent upon, when his condition did not improve, he had to report sick from 10.3.92 to 7.6.92 at Rohtak and thereby on 8.6.92 the plaintiff reported that for duty to Inspector R.F.P. Post Tuglakabad, who as per Railway Rule directed him vide letter No. RPF/E/3/TKD/92 dated 8.6.92 for obtaining a fresh Medical Certificate from Divisional Medical Officer, Northern Railway, Tuglakabad and consequent thereupon, the plaintiff on 12.8.92 a letter from Senior Medical Superintendent, Delhi bearing No. 66/MED/MEM/92 dated 12.8.92 submitted to Inspector R.B.P. Tuglakabad, a subordinate of defendant No.2 for further action in the matter. The same letter is in the following terms:-
“It is certified that the above named is permanently medical unfit for the duties of his original post. I recommend that on Medical Ground arrangement should be made to provide him a suitable alternative employment permanently under limitation of 573 of Indian Medical Railway Manual, 1981. It is fit in B-1 class.”
It is submitted that medical category for appointment as a constable in the R.P.F is B-1 and in this case as aforementioned, the plaintiff was declared medically fit in B-1, but not as a constable and recommended for suitable alternative appointment. In view of this directions from the Medical Authorities of the Railways, the Inspector R.P.F. Tuglakabad sent a letter to his immediate superior i.e. Assistant Security Commissioner, Northern Railway, Ghaziabad, bearing No.RPF/E-4/TKD/dated 7.5.96 along with letter of the Medical Authority for further action in the matter and this letter was received at his end on 18.5.96 and he was under obligation to seek alternative appointment for the plaintiff, but nothing was done on this point till date by the subordinate of defendan
