LI Network
Published on: 29 August 2023 at 10:55 IST
The Karnataka High Court has determined that the Railway Claims Tribunal does not possess the jurisdiction to impose penalties on individuals for non-compliance with its compensation orders.
In a verdict delivered by Justice R Nataraj, a single-judge bench allowed the petition presented by the Union of India, which sought to annul a 2017 order issued by the Tribunal.
The order had served a show cause notice to the General Manager of South Western Railway, inquiring why action should not be taken against him for failing to abide by the Tribunal’s order.
The case stemmed from a claim petition by Malini, wherein the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Union of India was directed to deposit the awarded compensation within 30 days.
However, as the Union of India did not fulfill this obligation, the Tribunal initiated proceedings and issued a show cause notice.
The petitioner argued that once the Tribunal issues an order, it becomes functus officio and loses the authority to impose contempt penalties. The petitioner asserted that while the Tribunal can consider an execution petition for enforcing its order, the act of issuing a show cause notice to the General Manager is beyond its jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it was disclosed that the petitioner had since paid the entire compensation, as directed by the Tribunal, along with interest. As a result, the petitioner requested the Court to quash the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Concurring with the petitioner’s stance, the Court proclaimed, “Under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Tribunal has no power to punish any person for disobeying its order. Once it disposes of a petition, it loses seisin over the matter and becomes ‘functus officio’, unlike a Civil Court, which has the power to punish for disobedience of its orders.”
The Court 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 steps for non-compliance with its order.”
Acknowledging that the petitioner had complied by paying the compensation along with interest, the Court concluded, “It is appropriate that the proceedings before the Tribunal initiated on the application of the respondents, dated 07.11.2016, are to be concluded.”