Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway vs General Secretary, Southern Railway Men''s Union

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner-Railway is aggrieved with the decision of the Labour court at Ext. P10, which granted temporary status to a workman from 1975 onwards. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that going by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Inder Pal Yadav and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1985) 51 FLR 138 : (1985) 2 LLJ 406 : (1985) 1 SCALE 703 : (2005) 11 SCC 301 : (1985) 3 SCR 837 : (1985) 2 SLJ 58 : (1985) 17 UJ 1040 , the temporary status can be granted only from 1984 and not from 1976. The same is a measure devised by the Railways which had the approval of the Hon''ble Supreme Court to mitigate the hardship of the casual labourers engaged by the railways. In such circumstances, no regularisation can be granted prior to the date as prescribed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court; is the compelling argument.

The learned counsel for the respondent however, would draw a distinction, insofar as open line casual workers and project casual workers. According to him Inder Pal Yadav (supra) deals with only project casual workers. He relies on Ram Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1988 SC 390 : (1987) 4 JT 534 : (1989) 2 LLJ 72 : (1987) 2 SCALE 1189 : (1988) 1 SCC 306 : (1988) 2 SCR 138 : (1989) 1 SLJ 102 and Union of India and Others Vs. Basant Lal and Others, AIR 1993 SC 188 : AIR 1992 SC 188 : (1992) 2 JT 459 : (1993) LabIC 1 : (1992) 2 LLJ 609 : (1992) 1 SCALE 413 : (1992) 2 SCC 679 : (1992) 1 SCR 823 : (1992) 1 SLJ 190 : (1992) 2 UJ 13 to contend that casual labourers working under the Railways continuously would be entitled to temporary status on completion of 120 days, if they are engaged in open line and not in a project. The employment of the workman herein was as a casual labour in the open line, which has been proved by the Union by production of documents as indicated in the labour court award. Hence on the basis of the decision reported in Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 : (2002) 95 FLR 949 : (2002) 8 JT 471 : (2002) 3 LLJ 1111 : (2002) 8 SCC 400 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 13 , there is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the award under Article 227, is the plea.

A reading of the award would show that the workman had been previously contesting the matter before the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, in which an award was passed, produced as Ext. W3. Therein the petitioner was directed to be granted reinstatement with temporary status. The award has attained finality. Subsequently, being reinstated on 13.12.1995, the petitioner was granted temporary status, which status however was confined from 15.02.1989; as is evidenced by Ext. W2 order. The dispute raised was with respect to the restriction of the temporary status from 15.02.1989. The workman sought temporary status prior to that date, specifically from 1975 onwards.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court raised two issues as to whether the claim was stale and its justification. The workman admittedly was reinstated only in the year 1995 and the order granting temporary status from 1989 was issued in 1996. Immediately, the workman was before the authority seeking redressal of his grievance and pre-dating the temporary status. The matter was raised as a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 too and considerable delay was occasioned in the reference being made. The ground raised by the Railways as to the claim being stale was hence negatived. It is trite that limitation does not apply to industrial adjudication. Nityananda, M. Joshi and Others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, AIR 1970 SC 209 : (1970) 20 FLR 153 : (1970) LabIC 269 : (1969) 2 LLJ 711 : (1969) 2 SCC 199 : (1970) 1 SCR 396 . Further the facts too does not command an interference in that finding of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court.

The workman examined himself and produced Exts. W1 to W3. The casual labour card produced at W1 shows that the petitioner was engaged in open line. Though a photo copy was produced, the marking of the same was not opposed by the Railways nor did the Railways adduce any evidence in support of the contention that the petitioner was a casual worker in a project. Ext. W2 order of the Railway itself was one granting temporary status on completion of 120 days. The order of the railways having conferred temporary status on completion of the 120 days, it was the finding of the Tribunal that it indicates unequivocally that the petitioner was continued as a casual labourer in open line since casual labourers in projects are granted temporary status only on completion of 180 days (sic.); actually 360 days.

Inder Pal Yadav (supra) dealt with the casual labourers employed in the project of the Railways. The Railways framed a scheme under which temporary status was conferred on casual labour in the project subject to completion of a minimum of 360 days as on 01.01.1984. The date on which the individual employer would be treated as temporary depended on their service. The Hon''ble Supreme Court while affirming the Scheme only modified the effective date, to 01.01.1981. Ram Kumar (supra) and Basant Lal (supra) was with respect to disputes arising from the implementation of the Scheme. Both the decisions recognised the distinction between casual labour in the open line and project work and noticed that the minimum requirement of days of employment were different.

The petitioner''s labour card indicated that he had continued from 28.06.1975 to 14.03.1976 when he had worked continuously without break for 257 days; with only leave of 4 1/2 days. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal granted temporary status from 25.10.1975, the date of completion of 120 days service. The Railways having not substantiated their contentions in any manner either by a witness examined before the Tribunal or by production of any documents, this Court cannot interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The compelling evidence of the workman/Union stood totally uncontroverted. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has in Essen Deinki (supra) cautioned that the jurisdiction exercised under Article 227, in examining an award, in an industrial adjudication, is not an appellate one and a re-appreciation of evidence is not warranted. There is nothing perverse in the findings of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and on the contrary it is based on material evidence proffered by the workman/Union, which stood unchallenged by any contra evidence. The Railways rested contend with merely asserting the petitioners employment, in a project, when its own order of reinstatement was contrary to its assertion as per the extant regulations.

The Original Petition would stand dismissed. Parties left to suffer their costs.