N.F. Railway Mazdoor Union and Others vs The Union of India and Others

S. Ali Ahmad, J.—There are 106 petitioners in this Case. Out of them, petitioner No. 1 is the Union whereas the remaining 100 petitioners are the workmen. Their prayer is to quash annexure--1, a notice inviting tender from the contractor to handle loading and unloading work at Katihar Railway Station. Their further prayer is to restrain the respondents from dispensing with the Services of the 105 petitioners. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by. the learned counsel for the parties, some facts will have to be borne in mind. The respondents entered into an agreement with the Katihar North Sramik Sahayog Samity on 4.2.1980 to handle loading and unloading work of parcel and goods. Under this agreement, the aforesaid Co-operative Society was given the work to load and unload the parcel and other goods. The Co-operative Society engaged 105 workmen besides some others to do the loading and unloading work. Admittedly, Clause 12 of the agreement provided that in certain cases the agreement can be terminated. Since, according to the respondents, the Co-operative Society was not properly discharging its obligation under the contract, the agreement was terminated and the workmen who were working for the contractor were retained by the respondents in the year 1980 itself to do the loading and unloading work, and thereafter they, admittedly are being paid by the Railway and also, admittedly they continued to work till the 12th May, 1983 when an order of status-quo was passed by this Court. The petitioners in this circumstance came to this Court for the reliefs aforesaid. Mr. B.C. Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the work of loading and unloading is of a permanent and perennial in nature. He says that since these petitioners have been doing this work since the year 1980, therefore, they should not be disturbed rather he says that they should be absorbed in the C.P.C. scale as regular employees of the Railway.

Mr. A. B. Ojha, learned-counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway says that the petitioners are not working as casual labourers under the Railway. He says that they, in fact, are the workmen of the Co-operative Society, and the Railway is taking work from them.

I do not think that this stand of the Railway can be accepted. The agreement was terminated as per Clause 12 of the agreement. Therefore, these petitioners cannot be said to be the workmen of the contractor. Admittedly, the work is being taken under the supervision of the Officers of the Railway and also, admittedly, payment is being made to them by the Railway. In the circumstances, it is futile to suggest that the workmen notwithstanding the Cancellation of the agreement continued to be the casual labourers of the Contractor. In the circumstances, I hold that the petitioners No. 2 to 106 are casual labourers of the Railway and are engaged in permanent and perennial nature of work.

The next question which arises for consideration is to what relief they are entitled to in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a large number of persons who were employees on casual basis of the Railway in different projects. In the case the Supreme Court approved the scheme submitted by the Railway Board with some modification and directed the Railway to absorb them in a phase-wise manner. This scheme was subsequently made applicable by the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 39 to such of the casual labourers who were working on the open line. The aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court make the position quite clear.

Since these petitioners also have been working since the year 1980 as casual labourers on the open line, they have now to be regularised in terms of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court. It is needless to say that on regularisation they will be entitled to such benefits and conditions as are applicable to that class of employees. In the result, this application is, accordingly allowed, but without costs, and the notice inviting tender as contained in annexure-1 is hereby quashed.