LexSHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 447 SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (SLP (Civil) No. 25721 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 [H.L. DATTU AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] A B Service Jaw: Regularisation - Claim by canteen workers engaged by Mess/Canteen run in the S& T Training Centre, Railways that they be treated as railway employees and C regulariz.ed in conformity with the statutory provisions as applicable to non-statutory canteens of the Railway administration - Held: Tribunal is the f;nal fact-finding authorfty - Tribunal held that the petitioners were working in a non-statutory non-recognised canteen - There is no reason D to interfere with the said finding - Petitioners failed to place on record any documents before the Tribunal to support the fact that sanction was granted by the Railway Board, recognising the Mess being run at the S& T Training Centre, as a non-statutory recognised canteen - Therefore, since E there is no material placed on record, regarding the grant of sanction by Railway before any forum to highlight that the said Mess was of the nature of non-statutory recognised canteen, such a sanction cannot be assumed - Railway Establishment Manual - Rule 2831 - Constitution of India, 1850 - Art. 136 F - Scope of. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under G Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot normally interfere with the findings of fact of a Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the petitioners were working in a non-statutory non-recognised canteen. There is no 447 H 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A reason to interfere with the said finding. The petitioners relied upon an unsigned copy of letter dated 09.11.1976 to show that a refundable advance was sanctioned for the Mess Management Committee and that the said advance was approved by the Railway Board. The said B unsigned letter was brought on record for the first time only before the High Court of Delhi in the review petition. The authenticity of the said letter was rightly doubted by the High Court, and therefore, the same could not amount to the due sanction of the canteen granted by the c Railway Board. According to Rule 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual, for the grant of such sanction for recognition of the canteen, the Railway Board must be approached, prior to starting the said canteen. The petitioners failed to place on record any documents 0 before the Tribunal to support the fact that sanction was granted by the Railway Board, recognising the Mess being run at the S&T Training Centre, as a non-statutory recognised canteen. Therefore, since there is no material placed on record, regarding the grant of sanction by E Railway before any forum to highlight that the said Mess was of the nature of non-statutory recognised canteen, such a sanction cannot be assumed. [Paras 11, 14 to 18] [453-G-H; 455-C-H; 456-C-E] S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC F 1: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422; Hazma Haji v. State of Kera/a 2006 (7) sec 416 : 2006 (4) Suppl. scR 604 - held inapplicable. MMR Khan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1990) Suppl. G SCC 191 :1990 SCR 687; Metroark Ltd. v. CCE (2004) 12 SCC 505; Pragati Computers (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2000 (10) SCC 150; Reliance Silicon (/) (P) Ltd. v. CCE (1997) 1 SCC 215: 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 501; Asian Paints India Ltd. V. CCE (1988) 2 sec 470: 1988 (3) SCR 339; H Collector of Customs v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. 1988 Supp SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 449 796; Piara Singh v. Natha Singh 1991 Supp (2) SCC 289; A Traders and Traders v. Ramnarayan Bhattad 1995 Supp (2) sec 661 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1990 SCR 687 relied on Para 6 B (2004) 12 sec 505 relied on Para 11 2000 (1 o) sec 150 relied on Para 11 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 501 relied on Para 11 c 1988 (3) SCR 339 relied on Para 11 1988 Supp 796 relied on Para 11 1991 Supp (2) sec 289 relied on Para 12 D 1995 Supp (2) sec 661 relied on Para 13 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422 held inapplicable Para 19 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 604 held inapplicable Para 19 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. E 25721 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 30.03.2012 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3774 of 2011 and final Judgment and order dated 09.05.2014
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.