Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, J.
All India Loco Running Staff Association Northern Railway - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India (Uoi) and anr. - Respondent
S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 2277, 2343 & 2333 of 1983.
Decided On : 29-10-1984
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES - INDIVIDUAL CAUSE OF ACTION - RULE 375 OF HIGH COURT RULES, 1952 - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION - LACK OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - QUASHING OF IMPUGNED ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Three writ petitions were filed by railway employees' associations challenging an order that forfeited earned leave, postponed increments, and denied certain benefits to employees who participated in an agitation. The petitioners argued that the order was illegal as it was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees. The non-petitioners objected to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that each employee had an individual cause of action and separate writ petitions should have been filed by each aggrieved employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable as the petitioners were associations representing a large body of employees whose rights and interests were affected by the impugned order. The court also held that the delay in filing the writ petitions was not sufficient to dismiss them, considering the nature of the order passed and the reliefs granted to the affected employees who filed writ petitions earlier. The court further held that the impugned order was illegal as it was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions filed by the associations on behalf of the affected employees were maintainable. 2. Whether the delay in filing the writ petitions was sufficient to dismiss them. 3. Whether the impugned order was illegal as it was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable as the petitioners were associations representing a large body of employees whose rights and interests were affected by the impugned order. The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India and People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, which held that representative actions in appropriate cases cannot be bluntly ruled out and that a non-recognised association can maintain a writ petition. 2. The court held that the delay in filing the writ petitions was not sufficient to dismiss them, considering the nature of the order passed and the reliefs granted to the affected employees who filed writ petitions earlier. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, which held that there is no invariable rule that whenever there is delay the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain a petition. 3. The court held that the impugned order was illegal as it was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees. The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Karan Singh v. Union of India and Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors., which held that the right of 'audi alterem partem' cannot be denied to the persons affected.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order in so far as it related to the affected employees on whose behalf the associations had filed the writ petitions.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to enforce the fundamental, statutory and other rights of its member citizens employed with respondents No. 1 and 2 in Loco Running Sheds of Jodhpur Division of Northern Railway. These employees are working as Drivers, Shunters, Diesel Assistants and Fireman etc.
In pursuance of the order Anx. 1 dated March, 1981 the non-petitioners are said to have forfeited the earned leave of the employees, postponed the increments and denied benefits of their earlier services for the purpose of leave, passes, qualifying service and pensionary benefits. It is said that penalty was inflicted on them as they did not return on duty before 16 Hrs. on February 25, 1981, on account of the agitation launched by the Railway Employees in support of the demand. Out of the persons mentioned in Anx. 1, the persons whose names are mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition have expired and some of them have been medically decategorised Against the order Anx. 1 some employees filed their writ petitions in this Court. The writ petitions were allowed by this Court on Nov. 8, 1982 and the judgment and the order passed in the writ petitions were affirmed in Special Appeal by the Division Bench by its order dated 22-3-1983. The impugned orders were quashed in so far as the petitioner filing the writ petitions were concerned Toe petitioner has filed the writ petition on behalf of 734 affected employees as they were not given equal treatment by the non-petitioners praying that the non-petitioners may be directed to give the same relief to them which was granted by this Court in the writ petition filed by some of the employees. In para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that there were about 948 employees working at the Loco Running Shed of Northern Railway. Jodhpur and they were Drivers, Shunters, Diesel Assistants and Fireman. In January-February 1981 an agitation was commenced by the Workman employed at the various Loco Running Sheds of Indian Railway in connection with their demands regarding conditions of their service. During the agitation about 805 employees at the Loco
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
