UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MUNIM SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 03-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
MUNIM SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Labour and Services: 
A 
B 
Casual workers in Telecommunication Depattment-Scheme for ab-
C 
sorption-Seniorily list maintained on Divisional basis-Direction of Tribunal 
for preparation of list on All-India basis-Validity of 
On an application filed by the respondents, who were engaged as 
casual workmen In the Telecommunication Department, the appellants 
were directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, to pay the respon-
D 
dents the benefits under the scheme prepared for absorption of casual 
workers, and directed them to prepare seniority list on all-India basis and 
give work to the workmen accordingly. 
Against the Tribunal's order, the appellants filed an appeal before 
this Court, contending that while the appellants bad no objection to the E 
enforcement of the scheme as they themselves were doing, difficulty arose 
on account of the observations and directions issued by the Tribunal tbat 
the work had to be given to the casual workmen according to their 
seniority In the list which shouid be prepared on an all-Indian basis. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that if the Tribunal's F 
order la regard to preparation of seniority list on an all-India basis was 
not done and work allotted accordingly, the respondents were likely to 
suffer serious prejudice. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
G 
HELD: The appellants are maintaining seniority list on Divisional 
basis, which bas been disapproved by the Tribunal. In view of the engage-
ment of casual labour In the different parts of the country, it is not 
practicable for the Department to maintain a single seniority list for the 
entire country with respect to the casual workmen, nor would it be practi- H 
405 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A cal for these workmen to travel from one part of the country to another 
for obtaining a job of the kind which was availale to casual workmen. The 
engagement of such workmen is made on local basis from time to time 
according to the pressure of work and it is impossible to collect the 
necessary data and circulate the same throughout the country for allot· 
B ment of work on the basis of all-India seniority. [ 406-H; 407-A,B] 
In the circumstances, the direction of the Tribunal to prepare a list 
on all-India basis of the casual workmen and to allot work to them is set 
aside. (407-C] 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated. 2.8.1991 of the Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1476 of 1990. 
D 
V.R. Reddy, Addi. Solicitor General, Ani1 Katiyar, C. Ramesh and 
C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants. 
E 
Mrs. Rani Chhadra and A.P. Mohanty for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave 
is granted. 
By this appeal the appellants are challenging the judgment of the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, directing them to pay the 
F respondents, who were engaged as causal workmen during the period May, 
1988 to June, 1990 in the Telecommunication Department, the benefits 
under the scheme prepared for absorption of casual workers. The learned 
Solicitor General of India has contended that the appella.'lts have no 
objection to the enforcement of the scheme as the authorities are themsel· 
ves doing, but the difficulty arises on account of the observations and 
G directions issued by the Tribunal in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned 
judgment to the effect that the work has to be given to the casual workmen 
according to their seniority in the list which should be prepared on an 
all-India basis. The appellants are maintaining seniority lists on Divisional 
basis which has been disapproved by the Tribunal. In support of his stand, 
H the learned counsel argued, that in view of the engagement of casual Jabour 
U.0.1. v. MUNIM SINGH [SHARMA, J.] 
407 
in the different parts of the country it is not practicable for the Department A 
to maintain a single seniority list for the entire country with respect to the 
casual workmen, nor will it be practical for these workmen to travel from 
one part of the country to another for obtaining a job of the kind which is 
available to casual workmen. The engagement of such workmen is made 
on local basis from time to time according to the pressure of 

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