1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. First Appeal No.703 of 2009. The Union of India. Vs Zafarshah S/o Tafazzulshah & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P. S. Lambat, Advocate for the appellant. Coram : A.H. Joshi, J. Dated : 24th June, 2009. 1. This is an appeal by Railway being aggrieved by the award passed in Claim Application No.69/0A- II/RCT/NGP/2005, dated 17th December 2008. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the preposition that the accident subject matter did not occur in the course of working of Railway , and, therefore, no liability can be fastened against Railway 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the following Judgments:- [1] 2001 (3) T.A.C. 673 (Mad) Union of India Rep-by its General Manager Chennai v. Krishnammal. 2 [2] 2001 ACJ 2129, Rambha Bai v. Union of India and another. 4. In 1st case, the subject matter case was an accident in the Railway compartment itself. With utmost humility at command, this Court is unable to get persuaded by the view taken by Lordships of High Court of Madras. Further reasons for disagreement with this judgment are narrated hereinafter at appropriate place. 5. Second Judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate is of Madhya Pradesh High Court. On what is seen, incident towards which compensation was sought is by the victim of the accident who was the workman working on the Railway Trolley. The Railway Trolley was not considered to be a train, moreover, the claim by the dependants was admissible under the provisions of Workmen s Compensation Act. This Judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, therefore, does not lend direct support to the present appeal by the Railways. Any further discussion on this Judgment is, therefore, not considered to be necessary. 6. Now coming to the question as to whether, and what shall be the compass of the term In the course of working on Railway , prima facie appears to need wider interpretation. This Court, however, at this stage, would not address and decide this issue in the peculiar facts 3 namely it is a case of death of a child who was a passenger, and suffered while on the plat-form though not  in the Railway or due to, operation of machine called Railway. 7. Considering the evidence which was led before the Tribunal, it appears that the deceased would have been entitled for compensation almost as much as is awarded by the Tribunal had the claimants filed a civil suit towards liability. 8. Even if appeal is allowed on the point of jurisdiction, the result would be to entertain, then at final hearing allow the appeal and return of the claim petition for filing as a civil suit in the Civil Court, and a poor victim will be thereby dragged from one Tribunal to the Court. All this gamut could have been avoided had the objection to jurisdiction been taken at an earliest possible occasion before the Tribunal itself. 9. Considering that the Railway Administration is an organ of State, interest of justice would warrant to be the predominantly governing factor than tossing on the chess board of jurisdictions. Though question of law and jurisdiction is arising, considering the State owes primary duty to do justice, the State would stand returned to justice if present appeal is dismissed without being stuck up to the aspect of jurisdiction. While it is true that 4 question of jurisdiction goes to the root, considering the larger aspect of justice, and that ultimately, point that the State would be liable to pay, without discussing and adjudicating various other legal issues indicated herein before, this Court would consider the present appeal to be unworthy of admission and hence, same is dismissed. JUDGE /Muley/