INDER PAL YADAV AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ETC.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 18-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
837 
JNDER PAL YADAV AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ETC • 
. April 18, 1985 
(D. A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Ari. 41 and 42-Right to work-Casual labour 
employed on project for a number of ,years-Services of casral labour terminated 
on completion of Project-Scheme framed subsequently for casual labour-
Validity of-Guidelines for implementation of Scheme-S.25_G, I.D. Act and Art. 
14 of the Constitution. 
The petitionerl-work1nen styled as 'Project Casual Labour' in these writ 
petitions and special lc'lve petitions contened that even though they had put in 
continuous service for years, their services were terminated on the ground that 
the project on which they were en1ployed has been wound up on its completion 
and their services 1,1,ere no more needeJ. After the conclusion of the hearing in 
some of the matters, the Railway Ministry framed a scheme to find a just and 
humane solution affecting the livelihood of the petitionser. It provided that casual 
labour employed on projects may be treated as temporary on completion of 360 
days of continuous employment. 
Disposing of the petitions, 
·HELD: 1. (i) By and large the scheme cer'tainly is an improvement on the 
present situation though not wholly satisfactory. Hov.:ever the Railv.:_ay being 
the biggest employer and hav.ing regard to the nature of its work, it would have 
to engage casual labour and therefore, as a prelimir.ary step towards realisation 
of the ideal enshrined in Articles 41 and 42, this Court proposes to put its stamp 
of approval on the sch'eme with one major variation which is herein set out. 
[•41D] 
1. (ii) The scheme envisages that it would be applicable to casual labour 
on projects who were 10 service as on January I, 1984. The choice of this date 
does not commend, for it is likely to introduce an inviduous, distinction between 
similarly situated p:!r~on~ and e:ii:pose some workm-!n to arbitrary discrimination 
flowing From fortuitous court's ord:!r. since, in som~ m1tters, the court granted 
interim stay before the workrn:n could be retrenched while som~ other were not 
so fortu'l lte. Those in respect of wh.Jm the court granted interim relief by stay/ 
suspension of the order of retrenchment, they woul.1 b>! treated in service on 
l. 1. (984 While others who fail to obtain interim relief though similarly situ<\tecl 
A 
u 
c 
D 
F 
G 
Q 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] 3 S.CR. 
would be pushed down in the implementation of the scheme. Therefore. those 
who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to 
those who ru-shed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are 
entitled to similar treatment. Keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, the 
Courfmodifies part 5.1 (a) (i) of the scheme by modifying the date from l.1.1984 
to 1. I. 1981. With thic; modification and consequent rescheduling in absor-
ption from that date onward, the scheme framed by Railway Ministry is accep-
ted and a direction h given thlt it must be implemented by re-casting the stages 
consistent with the change in the date as herein directed. [841E-G; 842B-C] 
(2) To avoid vio~ation of Art. 14, the scientific and equitable way of im-
plementing the scheme is for the Railway administration to prepare, a 1ist of 
project casual labour with reference to each division of each railway and then 
start absorbing those with the longest s"rvice. If in the process any adjustments 
are necessary, the same muH be done. 1'1 giving this direction, the Court is con· 
siderably influenced by the statutory 
re~ognition of the principle of last come 
first go or to reverse it first come last go as enunciated in s.250 of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. (8420-F] 
ORIGINAL JURlSD!CtlON: Writ Petitions Nos. 
147, 320-69, 
459, 4335-4434/85 etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution). 
For the Appearing Parties : B. Datta, Rishi Kesh. M.K. Rama 
murli MA. Krishnamurty. Anis Suhrawardy, M.S. 
Gu}aral, S.C. 
Maheshwari, PP .. Singh, C. V. Subba Rao, R.lj. Poddar, 
C.P. 
Pard!y V.K. Verin r, R. P. Singh, lnlira Sawhney, S.C. Pale!, Habans 
Singh, 
G.N. C!rowdhary, 
G.S. 
Narinder, RD. Upadhyay, P.K. 
Jain, K.R. Nagaraja, Shakil Ahnud Syed, NS. Das Bahl, KR.P. 
Pillai, D.Goburdhan, C. Ma/!rotro, SN. Chowdhary, V.K. Panditn, 
Manoj Saxena, Madan Sharma, G.S. Narayan, Ms. Halida Khatoon, 
K.K. 
Gupta, E.C. 
Agarwa!a, 
R. Salish, Ms. 
A. Subhashini, 
Sambandam and Pillai, P.N. Gupta,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.