Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Railway Majdoor Congress (INTUC) Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6953 of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.96 of the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A.No. 1361 of 1995)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.96 of the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A.No. 1361 of 1995)
Petitioner: Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Railway Majdoor Congress (INTUC)
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6953 of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.96 of the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A.No. 1361 of 1995)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.96 of the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A.No. 1361 of 1995)
Judges: A.S.ANAND & K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 01, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Advocate, for the appellant
Mr. V.C.Mahajan, Senior Advocate, Parveen Swarup, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Mr. O.P.Tiwari, Advocate, for M/s O.P.Tiwari & Co. Advocates for the Respondent No.4.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Regularisation of service of contract laboures as porters – Held in the interest of labour, the Administrative Tribunal should have decided the point in the light of National Federation of Railway Porters case instead of directing union to avail alterna-tive remedy- Tribunal to decide about ‘appropriate government’ to decide regularisation question – Order set aside.
Regularisation of service of contract laboures as porters – Held in the interest of labour, the Administrative Tribunal should have decided the point in the light of National Federation of Railway Porters case instead of directing union to avail alterna-tive remedy- Tribunal to decide about ‘appropriate government’ to decide regularisation question – Order set aside.
Held:
The question that was to be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters’ case (supra) was which is the ‘appropriate Government’ to decide the question of regularisation of the workers to apply the principle laid down by this Court in Nation-al Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 =1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 152. In the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the interests of labourers are involved, we think it would have been appropriate for the Tribunal to decide the ques-tion itself instead of directing the union to avail the alterna-tive remedy. (Para 7)
Cases Reffered:
1. National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 = (1995) (Supp) 3 SCC 152. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
K. VENKATASWAMI, J.:
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard counsel for the parties.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribun-al (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”), Allahabad Bench, dated January 8, 1996 in O.A.No. 1361/95, the present appeal is filed.
4. In the view we propose to take, it is not necessary to set out in detail the facts leading to the filing of the said O.A. before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant union moved the Tribunal for regularising the services of its members, on the ground that they have been en-gaged as contract labourers for several years doing the job of parcel porters at Agra Fort (Railway Station) in the light of the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 = (1995) (Supp) 3 SCC 152.
6. According to the appellant, the said judgment of this Court was rendered more or less in identical circumstances. The Trib-unal, unfortunately, instead of going into the matter and decid-ing the issue raised before it, declined to entertain the O.A. on the ground that the union has an alternative remedy available to it.
7. The question that was to be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters’ case (supra) was which is the ‘appropriate Government’ to decide the question of regularisation of the workers to apply the principle laid down by this Court in Nation-al Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 =1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 152. In the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the interests of labourers are involved, we think it would have been appropriate for the Tribunal to decide the ques-tion itself instead of directing the union to avail the alterna-tive remedy.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 1361/95 and direct it to decide the issue itself on merits in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 = 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 152.
9. The parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions available to them in law before the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard counsel for the parties.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribun-al (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”), Allahabad Bench, dated January 8, 1996 in O.A.No. 1361/95, the present appeal is filed.
4. In the view we propose to take, it is not necessary to set out in detail the facts leading to the filing of the said O.A. before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant union moved the Tribunal for regularising the services of its members, on the ground that they have been en-gaged as contract labourers for several years doing the job of parcel porters at Agra Fort (Railway Station) in the light of the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 = (1995) (Supp) 3 SCC 152.
6. According to the appellant, the said judgment of this Court was rendered more or less in identical circumstances. The Trib-unal, unfortunately, instead of going into the matter and decid-ing the issue raised before it, declined to entertain the O.A. on the ground that the union has an alternative remedy available to it.
7. The question that was to be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters’ case (supra) was which is the ‘appropriate Government’ to decide the question of regularisation of the workers to apply the principle laid down by this Court in Nation-al Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 =1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 152. In the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the interests of labourers are involved, we think it would have been appropriate for the Tribunal to decide the ques-tion itself instead of directing the union to avail the alterna-tive remedy.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 1361/95 and direct it to decide the issue itself on merits in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1995 (5) SC 568 = 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 152.
9. The parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions available to them in law before the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
