A.I. RAILWAY PARCEL & GOODS PORTERS UNION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 22-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
A.I. RAILWAY PARCEL & GOODS PORTERS UNION 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 22, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND 
G.P.MATHUR,JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Regularisation of services of Porters in Railways-Supreme Court's 
earlier direction for abolition of contract system of labour and regularization 
of Porters-Assistant Labour Commissioner recommending their claim on the 
basis that the work handled by them was of permanent and perennial nature-
D Not considered by the Railway Administration on ground of their policy of 
downsizing the cadre on economic consideration-Challenge ta-Held: The 
Assistant Labour Commissioner has failed to appreciate the preposition of 
law that non-production of documentary evidence in opposition would not 
support their clajm for absorption-Contractors directed to produce original 
E 
F 
records of services of Porters working under them for verification to the 
Assistant Labour Commissioner-An opportunity to cross-examine contractors 
should be afforded to the Railways-Assistant Labour Commissioner to 
examine genuineness and authenticity of the claimants-The Railway 
Administration on the basis of recommendation of the authority should 
regularize the services of such Porters who fulfills the eligibility conditions-
Contractor would be having no claim against Railways for premature 
termination of contract-Railways could retrench the workmen so absorbed 
in accordance with law. 
The main issue which arose in these writ petitions and appeals was 
regularization of services of Railway Parcel and Goods .Porters in connection 
G with earlier directions of this Court relating to the abolition of contract system 
of labour in parcel handling work and to regularize ttieir services. 
H 
It was contended for the petitioners/appellants that in spite of the 
directions of this Court for the abolition of contract system in parcel handling 
842 
.{ 
.. 
,. 
--
A.I. RAILWAY PARCEL&GOODS PORTERS UNIONv. U.0.1. 
843 
work and their permanent absorption, the Railways neither abolished the A 
parcel handling work nor regularized their services; and that even though 
Assistant Labour Commissioner had recommended their claim recording the 
finding that the work of parcel handling was permanent and perennial in 
nature. 
On behalf of the Railways, it was submitted that the parcel handling B 
work was seasonal in nature; that the Railway Administration was taking 
measures for downsizing its cadre on economic consideration due to financial 
crisis; and that in view of the huge number of Porters, non-production of 
documentary proof by the Porters of having worked continuously, and the 
meager parcel handling charges, their regularization was financially not C 
viable. 
Disposing of the petitions/appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Non-production of evidence in opposition will not support 
the claim of the petitioners/appellants even by legal fiction. The Assistant D 
Labour Commissioner has failed to appreciate this proposition of law while 
recommending the claim of the petitioners/appellants. [855-Fl 
1.2. The burden of proving the claim of continuous working rests on 
the claimants for which they are required to furnish concrete proof and 
reliable document; that an opportunity to cross-examine the claimants and to E 
peruse the records produced by them should be afforded to the Railways. Since 
the contractors did net produce the original records and the Railways had no 
opportunity to cross-examine the contractors also, they are directed to appear 
before the Labour Commissioner and to produce the records for the relevant 
period and the claim could again be verified. The Labour Commissioner is F 
directed to afford an opportunity to the Railway Administration and the 
contractors and the petitioners/appellants and verify the authenticity and 
genuineness of the claim made by the petitioners with reference to the records 
that might be produced by the Railway Administration and the contractors 
and submit a report to the Railways. This would resolve the disputed claim. 
On the basis of the report, the Railway Administration shouid consider the G 
claim of the individual petitioners/appellants. (855-G, H; 856-A-C) 
1.3. The facts disclosed in the Assistant Labour Commissioner's report 
and the findings recorded in regard to the perennial nature of work cannot 
be overruled. (858-A, Bl 
H 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4. The Railway Administration should absorb perm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.