Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This writ petition on behalf of the Union of India has been filed at the behest of the General Manager. North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, challenging an award of the President Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-run-Labour Court, Kanpur in Labour Court Adjudication No. 47 of 1982 : Shri J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and others. The award is dated 11 February, 1986. It rests on an application moved by Sri J.N. Srivastava, aforesaid, an employee of the Railway Administration, on an application, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking computation of benefits in terms of money in the difference between the emoluments on the post of a Power Controller which he was holding and the one to which he was put, after a disability, the cause for which was an accident. The period in between is about five years. The petitioner returned to the post of a Power Controller later.
(2.) This issue regarding any variation in the pay of Sri J. N. Srivastava, hereinafter referred to as the workmen concerned is broadly confined to the period 23 July, 1947 to 4 November, 1952, when the continuity of the pay which be was receiving was disrupted, as in between, he was off work as a result of an accident, during the course of employment, and was restored normalcy of his post and pay in November, 1952, This implies that, but for the accident, all these controverses which have engaged the Industrial Tribunal, and the matter of this writ petition pending before the court since the last seven years, would not have arisen. The issues are more than forty years old. A judgment of this court in another matter perhaps gave the occasion to the workman concerned to lay an application under Section 33-C (2) to seek pay against a running post and special pay, as is attached to a running post. With this it connected the issue that when the workman concerned met with an accident on 23 July, 1947, he was hospitalised and until November, 1952, because of the accident at times he was put off duty and, in between, ho was given duty which he was not normally performing on the day of the accident. On this aspect, there is no issue and these circumstances stand noticed in the award which has been impugned.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Lal Ji Singh, Advocate on behalf of the Union of India and the General Manager North Eastern Railway and Mr. V. B. Khare, Advocate on behalf of the workman concerned.;