Railway Claims Tribunal Cannot Punish Any Person For Non-Payment Of Award Passed By It: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal has no power to punish any person for disobeying its orders, granting compensation to claimants.A single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj allowed the petition filed by the Union of India and quashed a 2017 order passed by the Tribunal, issuing show cause notice to the General Manager, South Western Railway, as to why action...
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal has no power to punish any person for disobeying its orders, granting compensation to claimants.
A single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj allowed the petition filed by the Union of India and quashed a 2017 order passed by the Tribunal, issuing show cause notice to the General Manager, South Western Railway, as to why action should not be initiated against him for non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal.
On the claim petition filed by Malini, the tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000 under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The petitioner (Union of India) was required to deposit the compensation within a period of 30 days.
Since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, Tribunal initiated proceedings and issued a show-cause notice.
The petitioner submitted that once an order is passed by the Tribunal, it becomes functus officio and has no power to punish for contempt. It was submitted that the Tribunal is entitled to entertain an execution petition for execution of its order and therefore, the order issuing show-cause notice to the General Manager is without jurisdiction.
Further it was informed that the petitioner has now paid entire compensation as directed by the Tribunal along with interest and therefore, the proceeding before the Tribunal may be quashed.
The court agreed with the submission of the petitioner and said,
“Under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Tribunal has no power to punish any person for disobeying its order. Once it disposes off a petition, it loses seisin over the matter and becomes "functus officio", unlike a Civil Court, which has power to punish for disobedience of its orders.”
It added “It is for the claimant to initiate contempt proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, and it is not for the Tribunal itself to take out steps for non-compliance of its order.”
Noting that the petitioner has already paid the compensation along with interest, the court held “It is appropriate that the proceedings before the Tribunal initiated on the application of the respondents, dated 07.11.2016 are to rest.”
Case Title: The Union of India v. Malini & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12947 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
Date of Order: 31-07-2023
Appearance: Advocate Abhinay Y.T for Petitioner.