IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3785 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- OA.786/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O. CHENNAI-3 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER SOUTHERN RAILWAY PALGHAT DIVISION PALGHAT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY PALGHAT DIVISION PALGHAT. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY PALGHAT DIVISION PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT: ---------------------- A.ABDUL LATHIF S/O.,MOHAMMED MOIDEEN, EX,.CASUAL LABOURER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION RESIDING AT ONAVAKKODE, NEAR UMMINI SCHOOL DHONI P.O., PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 3785 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 11th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.786/2006 are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant. The point raised by the petitioners is covered against them by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16330/2006 and connected cases. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish the said decision, referring to a special feature of this case. They point out that the respondent failed to produce the original casual labour card before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondent pointed out that the said card was submitted before the competent authority in 1999, when he was called for an interview and the same was not returned to him. The Tribunal considered the above contention of the writ petitioners, who were the respondents in the O.A and rejected the same, as the left hand thumb impression of Serial No.274 in the Live Register of casual labourers tallies with that of the applicant. He has WPC 3785/08 2 got 682 days' casual service. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. 2. If the fact that the applicant worked as casual labourer for 682 days can be established by other materials, the non-production of the casual labour card is not fatal. At any rate, it is a finding of fact rendered by the competent Tribunal. Therefore, we are not justified in interfering with the same. So, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the point raised by them is not covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16330/2006 and connected cases. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/