Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010156892024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4127/2024 KUMUD CHANDRA KALITA SON OF LATE DADHI RAM KALITA, RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 160/A, BRICKFIELD COLONY, RANGIA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI 2:DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P) N.F.RAILWAY RANGIY Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. P AGARWAL, MR. B J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. G PEGU(CGC) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 Heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. Page No.# 2/4 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking released of the outstanding dues as regards the benefit of revise pay as per recommendation of 6th and 7th pay commission, DA increments and other benefit endues to the petitioner as per his entitlement in terms of the award dated 31.01.2014 and the order dated 09.02.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 150/2015. 3. The facts of the case is that the respondent was serving as Section Engineer (SE) (C&W) and was posted at the Rangla Rallway Station. He was transferred from Rangia to Murkacchaleng on 24-12- 2007 by means of an order which provided that his pay scale would be Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10500/-. However, on the date of such transfer, there was no post of Section Engineer at Murkacchaleng carrying the pay scale of Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10500/-. In view of the above, the respondent did not join the aforesaid post. However, the name of the respondent was struck off from the attendance register at the Rangla office w.e.f. 10-07-2008. Thereafter, a memorandum of charge dated 29-10-2007 was served upon him leading to a disciplinary proceeding being drawn up against the respondent. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding the penalty of withholding of two sets of privilege passes was imposed upon the respondent. In view of the above development an Industrial dispute arose between the respondent and the petitioner. As such, a reference of the Industrial dispute was made by the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi vide order No. L-41011/122/2010-IR(B-I) dated 13-01-2011 to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal. The schedule of the reference is as Page No.# 3/4 follows:- "Whether the action of the Management of N.F. Rallway in transferring the post of K.C. Kalita, S.E. (C&W) to a non- sanctioned post & imposition of punishment to carry out a wrongful office order is proper and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?" 4. Upon consideration of the materials available on record and on hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Central Govt. Industrial-Tribunal had answered the difference in favour of the respondent and granted the following relief to him:- In view of my above discussion and taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the Workmen is entitled to 50% of his salary with effect from 10.7.08 l.e. the date of striking out of the name of the workmen from the Attendance Roll of the Office of the Sr. Sectional Engineer (C&W), Ranglya, which I hope, will meet the ends of justice." 5. Against the aforesaid award dated 31.01.2014, the respondents had filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 159/2015 which this Court after hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties was pleased to confirm the award. 6. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that though this Court in WP(C) No. 150/2015 has upheld the award dated 31.01.2014, the respondents have only implemented one portion of the order i.e., reinstatement of the petitioner, but the back wages as directed by the learned Labour Court and this Court have not been paid. Page No.# 4/4 7. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC for the respondents at the outset draw the attention of this Court that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been adjudicated before the Labour Court in LC Case No. 2 of 2024 and the aforesaid case is fixed on 14.10.2025. 9. It appears that during the time when the writ petition was filed, the Labour Court was not functioning and therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Be that as it may, since it appears that the Labour Court is functioning and the issue is already pending before the Labour Court, this Court is of the firm view that this writ petition is premature and ought not to be entertained. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 12. It is needless to be clarified that this Court has not gone into the merit of the issue raised before this Court and the same is kept open for determination by the appropriate Labour Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant