AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The applicant has approached this Tribunal to seek the following relief:
“8.1.To set aside and quash the impugned order dated 24.1.2019 as the respondents while proceeding to issue the impugned communication ignored the express directives passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and proceeded to dispose of the claim of the applicants basing on issues which has already been settled by this Hon’ble Tribunal. As such the impugned communication having been so issued is in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules holding the field, directives as passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and without there being any application of mind.
8.2To direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the applicants.
8.3To direct the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants on the basis of the casual labour identity card which were already declared to be genuine by the respondents as well as the Hon’ble Tribunal.
8.4To direct the Respondents to appoint the applicants against Group-D posts as has been done in case of similarly situated employees.
AND/OR
8.5Any other relief/reliefs that the applicants may be entitled to.”
Brief of the case as submitted by learned counsel for the applicants are that, applicants were working as Casual labour under the Assistant Engineer/BG/Con, N.F. Rly, Bongaigaon for different periods in 1983/1984/ 1985 and discharged thereafter. The Railway Board launched special drives in 1987, 1996, 09.10.1998 and 10.06.2006 for regularisation of the Ex-Casual labourers borned on Live/Supplementary Register against regular vacancies and accordingly several ex-casual labourers were regularised.
That, certain ex-casual labourers borned in the Live/Supplementary Register who were left out approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. no. 79/1996 and accordingly they were absorbed. But the instant applicants have been left out from regularisation for not going into litigation. According to applicants, despite their names available in Live Casual Labourers Registers of the Railways they were not granted the benefits and they are also entitled to get the benefit of the judgement in O.A. No. 79/96 which has already been decided by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by Judgement and order dated 05.11.2008 in WP(C) No. 6157/200-7 while upholding the order dated 14.06.2007 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 281/2005, the matter has attained finality and the issue is no more res integra.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is clear direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 14.06.2007 in O.A. No. 281/2005 upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court read with order dated 19.07.2005 in O.A. No. 336, 337 & 338 of 2004 and also order dated 10.04.2014 in O.A. no. 287/2011 for consideration of the cases of the applicants ignoring the Identity cards and based on their own records, namely, Xerox copies of the casual labour live register by a responsible committee with senior officials, but they have not yet received fair consideration leading to their regularisation.
But the applicants have been pushed into litigation on several occasions through O.A. 255/2003, 281/2005, 96/2011, 278/2011 and 188/2018 before this Tribunal and WP(C) No. 6157/2007 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and their cases have been rejected on different grounds on every occasion, latest by impugned letter dated 24.01.2019 on the ground that they were not disengaged prior to 01.01.1981 and they did not apply for registration of their names in live/supplementary casual labour register within the stipulated time and that the matter is more than 30-35 years old. Such grounds are extraneous to the Scheme of regularisation and violative of the direction/observation of this Tribunal as stated above.
It is stated that the applicants cannot be denied band denied due benefit due to delay and lapses on the part of the respondents. The impugned letter dated 24.01.2019 is arbitrary and illegal and violative of the aforesaid decisions of this Tribunal as stated above and as such liable to be set aside and quashed with direction for their regularisation.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants in the O.A have agitated their issue for grant of regularisation through several rounds of litigation before this viz. in O.A No. 255 of 2023. in O.A No. 2810f 2005, in O.A No. 96,78,79/2011, in O.A No. 287/2012, and in O.A No. 188/2018 and this is the sixth round of litigation against impugned order dated 24.01.2019. Orders in these O.A’s have been passed in favour of the applicants for consideration of their cases with specific observations. Against Order dated 14.06.2007 passed in favour of the applicants, Respondents had even approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P No. 6157/2007 which was dismissed by order dated 15.11.2008.
These proceedings ran parallelly to litigation by another set of similarly situated employees namely Sri Haren Das and Others. Against similar order of rejection dated 20.07.2020, applicants in O.A No. 37/2022 (Sri Haren Das and Others v. Union of India) approached this Hon’ble Tribunal. This Hon’ble Tribunal by order dated 14.06.2024 was pleased to allow the said O.A No. 37/2022 and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 20.7.2020 directing the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants on the basis of the report dated 16.03.2004 and to appoint them against Group-D posts as has been done in case of similarly situated employees. The aforesaid decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal on similar issue in respect of similarly situated employees is binding.
Learned counsel for the applicants further states that it has already been observed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court at para 15 of the judgement and order dated 05.11.2008 (page 69 of the O.A.) in WP(C) 6157 of 2007 that the names of the applicants are made available in Live/Supplementary Casual Labourers Registers as mentioned by the Railways in the additional affidavit filed by the applicants in O.A. No. 281 of 2005 which has attained finality. As such there is no scope for the respondents to raise the plea of non registration of the names of the applicants in the Live/Supplementary Casual Labourers Registers which is not tenable in law and facts.
Respondents have filed their reply wherein they have stated that, applicants earlier also filed OA 281/2005 before this Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 14.6.2007 directing the respondents to scrutinize all the available records of the applicants by the responsible committee constituted by the respondents with Senior Officers by giving personal hearing to the each of the individual applicants within 4 months (Annexure-R-1).
Aggrieved with the same, the Railway respondents filed WP(C) No. 6157/2007 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 12.11.2008 and directed the respondents to comply the order of the Tribunal. In compliance to the same, respondents constituted Screening Committee and the committee after scrutinizing the record as well as by giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the applicants submitted report on 11.11.2009. From the said report, it is very much clear that none of the applicants were appointed by the Railway and they were not been able to produce any scrape of paper in original to show that they were appointed by the Railway. Rather some of the applicants admitted during course of hearing that they worked under the contractor while the contractor were awarded contract for construction work.
Applicants again approached before this Tribunal vide OA 114/2010 challenging the impugned report submitted by the respondents as well as constitution of the committee and this Tribunal by order dated 28.9.2010 disposed of the same with a direction to constitute fresh committee for the purpose of scrutinizing the documents as per para 12 of the earlier judgment. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents constituted fresh committee and conducted fresh hearing to all the applicants personally submitted fresh report on 31.5.2011.
Thereafter, applicants again approached before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 10.4.2014 directed the Railway to give opportunity to the applicants to produce the record available on their custody as well for appearance and, accordingly, the department also produce the live register of casual labour and considered the case of the applicants for absorption in Railway service fixing date on 31.3.2014. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was complied and submitted report on 26.9.2014 of the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the documents submitted by the applicant in OA No. 156, 177, 178 and 187 of the 2011 and dated 10.4.2014 and 19.6.2014 as well as the proceedings was communicated on 15.10.2014 as per office record (copy of the report Annexure-R-6).
That thereafter again several original applications were filed by different applicants including the present applicants vide OA No. 417/2018 and the said original application was also disposed of on 6.3.2020 directing the Railway authority to consider the order dated 31.5.2016 in OA No. 413, 433, 434, 424 of 2014 and OA 11/2015 considering all the facts and materials on record as well as the Rules and instructions with regard to casual labours prevalent at that time, the claims were looked into and verified and it is found that the claim absorption of the Applicants in Railway cannot be considered and hence, it for was rejected by way of speaking order dated 20.7.2020. In view of the above there is no infirmity in passing he speaking order and same has been passed with due application of mind after considering the documents on record.
That after passing the speaking order on 20.7.2020, the same was communicated to all the applicants and the said order was duly received by the applicants. But after lapse of about 3 years the applicants challenged the said impugned order again though they have no claim and without any proper explanation regarding their delay in filing the original application.
Apart from that they have not challenged the impugned order on merit and there is infirmity in passing the impugned order. Since all the applicants in several occasions provided reasonable opportunity and all the time they have failed to substantiate their claim that they have been duly engaged by the Railway authority in any point of time, rather some of the applicants claim that they had worked under the contractors who performed the contract work of the Railway after the contract was awarded to the respective contactors regarding construction.
Hence their claim for regularisation has rightly been rejected by the railway. In view of the above the original application is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Sri S. K. Ghosh, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents further submits that the applicants are relying upon the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 37/2022 Haren Das & Ors Vs UOI & Ors (Railways), decided on 14.06.2024, the same has been assailed before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide WP (C)/6250/2024 and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 had stayed the order of the Tribunal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The case of the applicants as per them are that similarly situated persons namely, Haren Das & Ors., had filed O.A No. 37/2022 before this Tribunal which was allowed and, thereafter, the Union of India assailed the said order before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and which is still pending.
It is also the contentions of the respondents are that the present applicants are not similarly situated with the incumbents as mentioned by the applicants because they were not engaged by the Railways, however, they were employees of the contractor and outsourced employees.
Since the said Writ Petition No. 6250/2024 is pending for final decision before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, we are of the view that if the Writ Petition is dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by granting them benefits as prayed for, then the case of the present applicants would also be considered by granting same benefits after verifying their factual details whether their names were registered in the Live Register/ casual labour Registry maintained by the Respondents. In case, their names are not mentioned there in the Live Register, that would mean that they were not engaged by the respondent authorities and they were engaged by the railway contractual/outsourced and would not be entitled for the same benefits.
With the above observations and directions, the O. A is accordingly disposed of. No costs.