When Ravinder Raj resigned after 16 years of service as an unconfirmed telecom inspector of the Signals and Telecom wing of Northern Railway he demanded his gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Railways rejected his claim and the Controlling Authority under the Act upheld the decision of the Railways. This was confirmed by the Regional Labour Commissioner rejecting the appeal against the decision of the ControllingAuthority. Against this Raj appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.

The key point was the constitutionality and legality of the Railway Manual which in Para 709 denied gratuity to those who resigned, were removed or dismissed from the Railways. On November 7, 1983 the apex court admitted the appeal and ordered an expedited hearing in view of the importance of the question involved and that it might affect several pending cases. On November 5, 1984 a three-judge bench of the apex court took up the suggestion of the railway senior counsel and ordered that he ``will take appropriate instructions that the word `resigns' be deleted from the Manual'' (which the judges called an Act). With this the matter was adjourned for December 4, 1984. That was the end of the matter.

Thirteen years later the matter came up before a bench of two judges, presided over by a judge of the famous Hawala case. Ignoring the fact that from the Controlling Authority upwards the issue was about the legalityof Para 709(b) of the manual and also ignoring the binding order of the three-judge bench to the Railways, the two judges dismissed the appeal of Ravinder Raj by recording that the question of the validity of Para 709 ``does not arise for consideration.'' The judges did not question themselves as to how they as a bench of two judges could overrule the effect and spirit of the November 5, 1984 order of their three erstwhile colleagues who had tried to save Para 709 by permitting the Railways to delete the relevant word from the rules. Worse, the two judges did not even mention a word about the order of November 5, 1984.

The two-judge bench also ignored the specific plea that in any event Para 709 was a part of rules of the manual which were non-statutory and that a non-statutory rule could not be enforced against the specific command of Section 14 of the Gratuity Act which declared that the provisions of the Act will override anything inconsistent therewith in any other Act, instrument or contract. Theycompletely overlooked that: challenge had been laid to the Madras High Court judgment in Executive Engineer Southern Railway vs K. J. Verghese holding that railway administration being different from a railway company, the railway employee under the Indian Railways Act were not covered by the Gratuity Act which applied only to railway companies. The Madras judgment overlooked that the Railways were a ``person'' as a statutory juristic entity; that the definition of railway administration only fixed the levels of such administration without stating that government railways were not a railway company; that the Northern Railway on October 6, 1976 had issued a circular to all divisional superintendents and heads of departments informing them of the provisions of the Gratuity Act ``for necessary action''; that the Railways had not cross-examined Ravinder Raj when he deposed before the Controlling Authority that the Railways had been applying for exemption from the Act but had not got it; that the Railways neverfiled a reply to all this in the apex court which ignored all its judgments holding that gratuity is a reward for good, efficient and faithful service. The same bench dismissed Raj's review which has left him and the workmen of India's largest enterprise helpless before the might of judicial indiscipline.