Railways told to reinstate person with disability

December 04, 2010 11:38 pm | Updated October 17, 2016 11:48 am IST - CHENNAI:

The Madras High Court has directed the Railways to reinstate a person with disability, who was dismissed 25 years ago on charges of not being available in office after signing the muster, deliberately receiving her colleague's salary, and leaving without informing anybody.

In its judgment on an appeal by the woman, a Division Bench, comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and D. Hariparanthaman, however, modified an order of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Chennai, and said the reinstatement would be without back-wages but with continuity of service and attendant benefits. The Railways must pay wages from the date of the Tribunal's award till her reinstatement.

G. Annie Christy was appointed as Clerk at Tiruchirappalli in September 1980. On September 29, 1984 she signed the muster. It was a Saturday and half working day.

Ms. Christy collected her salary. As one of her colleagues was not present when her name was called for receiving salary, the appellant collected her salary too.

Ms. Christy, who was suffering from stomach pain, sensed it was turning acute. She placed a leave letter on the Superintendent's table as the Head Clerk was not available, and left for home.

She returned the same day to hand over the salary to her colleague but, by then, the latter had left office. She handed over the colleague's salary to the Superintendent.

Charges were framed against her and, after an enquiry, she was dismissed from service on June 6, 1985.

After her appeal and revision petitions to authorities were dismissed, she moved the Tribunal, which reviewed the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry held in February 2003.

The Tribunal ruled that the dismissal was not justified and ordered her reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages.

The Railways moved the High Court and a single judge in November 2008 set aside the Tribunal's award. Hence the present appeal by Ms. Christy.

Setting aside the single judge's order, the Bench said Industrial Tribunals were specially-constituted courts.

They had powers to re-evaluate evidence. The Tribunal had held that the appellant left office urgently because of severe stomach ache caused by menstrual problem.

The judges said that it was an admitted fact that the appellant came back to office the same day and returned the salary payable to her colleague to the Superintendent. Hence they did not find any error in the Tribunal's findings that Ms. Christy's act could not be characterised a “deliberate act” to cheat her colleague.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.