w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Divisional Railway Manager Personnel Branch Southern Railway v/s The Registrar Industrial Tribunal & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CORPN LIMITED [Active] CIN = L99999TN2000PLC002432

    W.A. No. 1307 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011

    Decided On, 06 November 2013

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

    For the Appellant: V.G. Suresh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R3 to R6, R.M.D. Nasurulla, K.V. Shanmuganathan, Advocates.



Judgment Text

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the Southern Railway against the order made in W.P.No.2643 of 2001, dated 02.03.2010. The said Writ Petition in W.P.No.2643 of 2001 was filed by the Southern Railway, challenging the award made in I.D.No.37 of 1996, dated 04.08.2000, insofar as modifying the punishment of the deceased second respondent/Workman and the same was heard along with the connected Writ Petition in W.P.No. 7635 of 2001 filed by the deceased second respondent/Workman, challenging the same award, insofar as denying backwages. Both Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by order dated 02.03.2010. Aggrieved against the same, the Southern Railway is before this Court with this Writ Appeal.

2. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the deceased second respondent was paid wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 till the date of his superannuation on 28.02.2009. The second respondent/ Workman died during the pendency of the Writ Appeal on 07.04.2012. The respondents 3 to 6 have filed a petition in M.P.No.1 of 2013, seeking to substitute them as Legal Heirs in the place of the deceased second respondent and the same was ordered by this Court on 04.10.2013.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6, who are the Legal Heirs of the deceased workman, during the course of arguments submitted that the second respondent/Workman having died, the Legal Heirs may be shown some compassion by paying the pension and other terminal benefits. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 requested the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Southern Railway to utilize his good office, to persuade the Management to arrive at a decision.

4. Based on the persuasion made and the legal advise given by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Southern Railway, the appellant agreed to sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of pension or gratuity or both, which can be sanctioned under Rule 65(i) of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993, which empowers the person imposed with punishment, if deserves special consideration to sanction compassionate allowance under the Railway Services Pension Rules. The appellant has also filed an affidavit before this Court today. In paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the appellant has stated as follows:-

"3. I state that the Competent Authority of the Appellant/Railways has accepted to consider grant of compassionate allowance in favour of the family of the deceased terminated employee on receipt of a request from his widow. The Appellant has already been paid last drawn wages from February 2001 till the date of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, compassionate allowance can be considered and effect will be given only on and from the date of superannuation and the same will be granted under Rule 65(i) of the Railway Services Pension Rules which stipulates that the authority competent to dismiss or remove a Railway Service from service may, if the case is deserving of a special consideration, sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. This discretionary power is vested with the authority competent to dismiss or remove a railway servant. Hence, on receipt of a request from the widow, for grant of compassionate allowance from the date on which the employee would have superannuated if he had continued in service, the same will be considered.

4. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the punishment of termination from service imposed on the deceased 2nd respondent be confirmed, the submission made above recorded, and appropriate orders passed in the Writ Appeal".

5. When such suggestion was made earlier before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 were directed to get instruction, as to whether the respondents 3 to 6 are agreeable for the said proposal of the appellant/Southern Railway.

6. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6, on instructions, submitted that based on the affidavit filed by the appellant/Southern Railway, this Writ Appeal may be disposed of, with a direction to the appellant/Southern Railway, so as to enable the Legal Heirs of deceased second respondent/workman to get the compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of pension or gratuity or both, in accordance with Rule 65(i) of the Railway Services Pension Rules. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 is also recorded.

7. In such circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, granting liberty to the respondents 3 to 6 to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

submit a representation, with Legal Heirship Certificate seeking compassionate allowance, as suggested by the appellant/Southern Railway in the affidavit filed today, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the appellant/Southern Railway is directed to sanction the compassionate allowance as assured in the affidavit filed today, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
O R