Union Of India vs Jaikrishan Narayan & Ors.

The review applicants are the respondents in the Original Application. By Annexure R.A I order dated 31^st August 2022, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application declaring that the applicants are eligible to claim overtime allowance at the destination station for the halt period; the respondents, the Review Applicants were thus directed to reckon such halt period for payment of overtime allowance and pay such allowances for the immediate past three years prior to the date of filing the Original Application.

The contentious question was whether the original applicants working as AC Coach Attendants/AC Technicians while undertaking duties in long distance super fast trains are entitled to get overtime allowance. They had contended that once they commenced duty from the headquarters, they remain engaged till reach back the original station, without any break; though they are given T.A/D.A, overtime allowance is not being paid. Citing a decision of the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal which became final, very same benefits were claimed by them. After considering the rival contentions and hearing counsel on both sides, by Annexure R.A-1 order, their claim was upheld.

After a delay of 104 days, they moved this R.A seeking to review and recall Annexure RA-1 order dated 31.8.2022.

After condoning the delay, the Review Application was entertained.

I heard the learned SCGSC Smt.O.M.Shalina for the review applicants and Sri.Martin G Thottan, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants in the O.A.

The main plank on which the R.A is filed is that they could not bring to the notice of the Tribunal Annexure R.A-2 and Annexure R.A-3 communications issued by the Railway board dated 29.10.2001 and 27.06.1985 respectively. It is pointed out that these communications could not be produced before the Tribunal as the staff in charge of the office of the Review Applicants failed to bring these circulars to the notice of the Counsel who appeared for the Railway. According to them, Annexure R.A-2 and Annexure R.A-3 communications were relevant while considering the O.A. The Tribunal did not refer to the rules or regulations governing the subject.

The learned counsel for the respondents/original applicants opposed the application, though no formal objection was filed.

Section 22 (3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that the Tribunal shall have the same power as vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit or while considering an application for review. Order 47 CPC mandates that, other things being the same, any person aggrieved by an order may apply for review, who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or Order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or Order made against him. Now the crucial consideration is whether the applicants could make out any of these circumstances to maintain review of Annexure R.A-1 order.

As hinted earlier, the said order was passed basing on Annexure A-1 order passed by the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal which became final by virtue of Annexure A-2 judgment of the Apex Court in SLP 18333/12. It is true that the rule position was not adhered to.

Now the review applicants say that they could not bring on record Annexure R.A-2 and Annexure R.A-3 communications. I am afraid, how these communications would advance the case of the applicants warranting a review of the order. Annexure R.A-2 deals with 'resting facilities for AC coach attendants and in-charges'. It only states that escorting staff may take rest in the AC coach itself wherever rest facilities are not available in the nature of running/rest room. Similarly Annexure R.A -3 deals with 'computation of duty hours of Air Conditioned Coach Attendants and in-charges'. It states that they should report for duty one hour prior to the commencement of the train journey for completing the pre-departure formalities and that on completion of the journey they can take one hour to complete the procedure for handing over the coach to the outstation maintenance staff etc. These communications do not deal with anything touching overtime allowance claimed by the applicants. It is not a new or important matter or evidence touching the subject. It is not known as to how non-production of these materials would have affected the outcome of the Original Application.

It is evident from Order 47 CPC that a decree or Order could be reviewed only on the grounds specified therein. The contentions in the Review Application or Annexure R.A-2 or Annexure R.A-3 communications are totally extraneous, in a way it only buttress the case of the applicants that they were not given any separate place for taking rest and that they have to do extra work before and after the actual journey time. Similarly, there is nothing in these communications to say that they had to handover charge of the coaches or materials supplied to them at the place of destination and to proceed to take rest. In other words, there is no break of duty for them. This Tribunal had considered that, unlike in the case of Loco Pilots, TTEs, Guards, this category of employees have to be on board the train throughout the journey and they get relieved only after the train reaches back the boarding station. These two communications only advance that proposition. Annexure RA-3 suggests that they are entitled to get overtime allowance. In other words, there is no discovery of any new or important material or evidence which has since been found out and produced. The review applicants also could not make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the records; other sufficient reasons are also not brought out, warranting a review.

There is absolutely no basis for filing such an application. I have no doubt that it is a clear abuse of the process of this Tribunal. The Review Application is dismissed. No cost.

Annexure RA1- True copy of the order dated 31.8.2022 in O.A No.180/00131/2019

Annexure RA2- True copy of Circular No.2001/Elect.(G)/170/7 dated 29.10.2001

Annexure RA3- True copy of Circular No.(LL) 83/HER/1-2 dated 27.6.1985