Skip to content


Kistoora Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Service
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 370/82
Judge
Reported in1983WLN292
AppellantKistoora Ram
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredTrade and Ors. v. K.V. Verghese
Excerpt:
.....been mode. thus both the reasons, which have been assigned for the rejection of the petitioner's application, in my opinion, are untenable.;revision allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000,..........reference is required to be made to section 1 of the act, the act has been made applicable to 'railway company' and the expression 'railway company' has been defined in section 2(p) of the act as,-2(p) 'railway company' has the meaning assigned to it in clause (5) of section 3 of the indian railways act, 1890 (9 of 1890)under the railways act the expression 'railway company' and 'railway administration' have been separately defined under section 3(3)(6). as the two expressions have been separately defined, it can not be taken that the railways, which are owned and run by the central government, can fall within expression 'railway company'. this question came up for consideration before the division bench of the madras high court in the executive engineer, construction southern rly.,.....
Judgment:

M.C. Jain, J.

1. This revision is direct against the order dated August 17, 1982, whereby the plaintiff-petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint, was rejected.

2. The plaintiff, in his plaint, inter alia claimed a relief in respect of the amount of gratuity. The defendant's case was that a sum of Rs. 4,158 08 p. has been deduced out of the gratuity amount in pursuance of orders dated July, 16, 1977 and March 31, 1980. The plaintiff wanted to introduce para 4(a) in the plaint, wherein he awarded that the deductions, which have been made in the gratuity account, are unauthorized and the plaintiff is further entitled to principal amount of gratuity along with twelve percent per annum interest toy way of damages from the defendants The learned Additional District Jade, No. 1, Jodhpur, rejected the petitioner' application for amendment, firstly, or the ground that the question of payment of gratuity can only be decided by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the controlling authority is also competent to go into the question of deduction alleged to have been made from the amount of gratuity. The learned Additional District Judge in the imputed order further assigned these reasons for rejection of the application that the plaintiff-petitioner has not produced the orders of deductions, nor has claimed any relief that the order of deduction may be declared invalid. For these reasons, the application for amendment was rejected. Dis-satisfied with the order of rejection, the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition.

3. I have heard Shri M.L. Shreemali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Mathur, learned Counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners.

4. The first question that arises for consideration in the present revision petition is as to whether the claim in respect of the amount of gratuity would be governed by the provisions of the Act. For that reference is required to be made to Section 1 of the Act, The Act has been made applicable to 'railway company' and the expression 'railway company' has been defined in Section 2(p) of the Act as,-

2(p) 'railway company' has the meaning assigned to it in Clause (5) of Section 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890)

Under the Railways Act the expression 'railway company' and 'railway administration' have been separately defined under Section 3(3)(6). As the two expressions have been separately defined, it can not be taken that the railways, which are owned and run by the Central Government, can fall within expression 'railway company'. This question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the Executive Engineer, Construction Southern Rly., Trade and Ors. v. K.V. Verghese 1979 Lab.L.C. 1873. It has been observed in the above case, as under

Having regard to these provisions it is clear that a railway administrated by the Central Govt. is treated differently from a Rly administered by a railway company. Though the definition of the 'railway administration' contained in Section 3(6) of the Indian Railways Act, will take into railway company when used in relation in the administration of that railway company, railway owned and administered by the Central Government can not be taken to be covered by the definition of a 'railway company'. In the face of the definition of railway administration that refers to two categories of administration by the Central Government and the other administered by the railway company the definition of railway company cannot in any sense be taken to include a railway administered by the Central Government. In this case the first respondent has claimed gratuity against the Southern Railway, which is administered by the Central Government and. not administered by a railway company.

It was urther observed as under.

The definition of the 'railway company' has necessarily to be understood in the light of the definition of railway administration s contained in Section 3(6) of the Act. Therefore, we are in a position to construe the definition of 'railway company' occur ding in Section 3(5) of the Indian Railways Act as including all railways either owned or administered by the Central Government or owned by others. That definition will have to be understood only as referring to the railways administered by persons other than the Central Government. In this view, we cannot accept the view taken by the third respondent the Southern Railway owned and administered by a railway company, has to be treated as railway company for the purpose of payment or gratuity.

I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the above case & in the above view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim of the provision of the Act and that only controlling authority has jurisdiction to decide and determine the questions of payment of gratuity to the plaintiff petitioner.

5. It has been urged on behalf of the defendant-non-petitioners by Shri Mathur that the claim of gratuity is based on the provisions of the Act and is has been calculated in accordance with the Act and besides that in respect of deductions, no relief has been sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner in the amendment and so the Additional District Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner s application. As the plaintiff's claim for gratuity can not be founded under the provisions of the Act, so even the plaintiff's suit for the account of gratuity, can not be proceeded unless the plaintiff seeks amendment in the plaint.

6. I have considered the above submissions of Shri Mathur. It may be stated that quoting of wrong provisions of law or claiming a particular amount under a particular provision of law, would not by itself dis-entitle the plaintiff to claim relief. The plaintiff can be granted relief, if the plaintiff is entitled to any relief under any law, other than what has been pleaded by him and relief can be granted to that extent to which he is entitled under any law. I need not go into these questions in this revision petition. It would be for the trial court to go into these questions and if the plaintiff deemed it proper, he may even seek necessary amendment in the pleading. What I am required to examine in the present revision petition, is whether the plaintiff could seek amendment of the plaint, as has been prayed for by him and whether the reasons assigned by the trial court are valid reasons for rejection of the petitioner's application. The plaintiff has claimed decree in respect of the amount of gratuity. What he wants now to aver, is that a sum of Rs. 4,155.00 p. has been wrongly deducted from the amount of gratuity, which is unauthorized deduction. It was hot necessary for the plaintiff to have sought any declaration in respect of this wrongful deduction. An averment was quite sufficient that the deductions have wrongly been made, as he is entitled to the entire amount of gratuity. Even it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have produced the orders, whereby deductions have been made Thus, both the reasons, which have been assigned for the rejection of the petitioner's application, in my opinion, are Untenable. What claim can be tried and whether the plaintiff has paid sufficient court-fees in respect of that claim or not, are the questions, in which the trial court would enter. In my opinion, there could possibly be no valid reasons for rejecting the plaintiffs application for amendment in the plaint.

7. In this view of the matter, this revision petition deserved to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order his set aside and the application for amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only.) Costs of this revision petition would be easy.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //