LexNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RAILWAY PARCEL PORTERS UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• NATIONAL FEDERATION OF RAILWAY PARCEL PORTERS A UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JULY 8, 1996 B [K RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Labour Low: Casual Labourers-Regularisation of-Railways-Casual Porten- C Regulmisation of--Directions given. National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1995) 4 SC 568, referred to. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ petition (C) Nos. 568 D and 711 of 1995. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) M.N. Krishnamani, V.A. Mohta, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, R.C. Kaushik, P. Gaur, Ms. Indira Sawhney, Ashok Kr. Sharma, D.K. Garg, E Sudhanshu Atreya and S.U.K. Sagar for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : By Order dated February 5, 1996, this Court directed the respon- dents to appoint a high level officer to enquire whether the petitioners have F been working as Causal Porters for a long time as perennial source of work and if so why they have not been regularised in the light of the law of this Court laid in National Federation of Railway Po1ters, Vendors & Bearers v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1995) 4 SC 568. Pursuant thereto, the respon- dents have appointed Mr. Vikram Chopra, Chief Marketing Manager to G enquire and submit a report to this Court. The said officer conducted the enquiry and stated that out of 503 petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 568 and 711 of 1995 the claim of 430 petitioners were verified. They were on the rolls of the registered cooperative societies of the Lucknow, Moradabad and Allahabad Division. Despite their working as porters for several years, since their names do not find place in the earlier petitions, they could not H 199 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A be regularised thinking lhat the relief in those writ petitions was confined to the persons whose names were expressly mentioned. Consequently, he recommended for regularisation of their services as mentioned thus : B c D E "(i) In order to comply with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judg- ment that the Railway should absorb persons supplied by the societies to work as labourers for parcel handling, to the extent that posts which arc of perennial and permanent nature can be justified, and to absorb perwns as per their length of working as such parcel .handling labour, it is recommended that Lucknow, Allahabad, Bikaner and Jodhpur Divisions should be asked to fall in line with the section taken at Moradabad Division i.e. to: (a) Conduct a work study at all the stations where such parcel handling is still being done by such labour and arrive at the number of posts required on a permanent and perennial basis, and (b) Screen all such eligible labourers as per the guide lines of Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the Railway rules and absorb them to the extent that posts arc justified. (ii) The case one person who is working at Lucknow Jn. of N.E. Rly. may be referred to General Manager/N.E.Rly., for necessary action. 11 He also found that he could not verify petitioners at SI. Nos. 23 to 72 whose names have been mentioned in the list appended by him, as the contract of the society under which they claimed to be working was F terminated w.e.f. November 7, 1991. As a result, he could not find any record to verify them. Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel undertakes to give all the details with correct facts regarding them to Mr. Vikram Chopra, C.M.M. who is directed to enquire into their claims and if they are found to be be eligible, the benefit of the order passed by lhe Court in the above order would be made available to them. As regards G petitioner no. 73, it was stated that he claims to be working in Lucknow Junction in Northern Eastern Railway and could not be verified. The General Manager, Northern Eastern Railway is directed to have the ad- dress of petitioner No. 73, namely, Mohd. Nafis, son of Aleem, verified and also whether he was working as a Casual Porter at Lucknow Junction H Station and if so whether he is on par with those candidates whose services NA110NAL FEDERATION OF RL Y. PARCEL PORTTERS 1: U.0.1. 201 were directed to be regularised. In case he is found to be working then the A benefit of the directions given in the aforesaid decision would available to him also. The service of all those petitioners be dealt with as per the law laid in the aforementioned judgment. The wri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.