LexUNION OF INDIA versus K.N. SIVADAS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNIOi-! OF INDIA
v.
K.N. SIV ADAS AND ORS.
AUGUST 1, 1997
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.)
A
B
Service Matter-{;asual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regulation) Scheme, 1989-Members of Reserved Trained Pool set up under
the Department of Posts/Telegraph, are different from casual labourers-They
enjoy benefits under a special scheme and are absorbed to hold regular C
posts---Cannot claim benefits under the Casual Labourers Scheme specially
for a period for which even casual labourers did not get any benefit.
The respondents were. members of the Reserved Tlained Pool which
was set up to meet manpower shortfalls in the Department of
Posts/Telegraphs. Though the pool itself was discontinued after some time, D
all tlie members were absorbed by the concerned departments. The appel-
Iiints however applied before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming
reliefs similar to that granted to casual labourers under the Casual
Labourers Scheme which was formulated as per the Directions in Jagrit
Mazdoor Union (Regd.) and Ors. v. Mahangar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and E
Anr., [1990) Supp. SCC 113. The CAT directed that all the benefits ap-
plicable to casual labourers be given to the appellants and that they should
also be paid productivity linked bonus for the period when they were RTPs
if they had completed 240 days of service each year for 3 years after their
recruitment as RTP member. The appeal is by the aggrieved Departments.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : The Tribunal has erred in equating RTPs with casual
labourers. The position of these two categories of employees is very dif-
ferent. The Tribunal has also erred in assuming that casual labourers are
getting these benefits during the period for which the RTPs are claiming G
these benefits. RTPs have already obtained the benefit of absorption in
regular service because of their own scheme. They, therefore, cannot on the
one hand avail of their own special scheme and at the same time, claim
additional benefits on the basis of what has been given to the casual
labourers. This is unwarranted, especially as the period for which they H
211
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997J~JJPP. 3 S.C.R.
~-~·
A claim these benefits is the period during which such benefits were not
available to casual labourers. The reliefs which are granted by the tribunal
are wholly unwarranted, looking to the service conditions of RTPs as com-
pared to the service conditions of casual labourers. [217-C-E; 218-A·B]
2. Various benefits which go with the conferment of temporary status
B were given to these casual labounrs in view of the fact that their eventual
absorption as regular employees was not to be within any fixed time and
they were not automatically entitled to become regular employees. The
position of RTPs is quite different. In the first place, the very scheme which
constituted RTPs provided for their absorption as regular employees. With
C this in mind, they were also given the same training as regular employees.
They were required in the mean time, to carry out short time duties or to
handle peak hour traffic on an hourly wage basis. However, there was clear
assurance in the scheme that they would be accommodated in future vacan·
cies as regular employees in the manner set out in the scheme. Therefore,
they are in a much better position than casual labourers and are now
D enjoying all the benefits of regular employment. Their claim relates to the
period prior to their absorption. The benefits which they claim are the
benefits which have been conferred on casual labourers only after
29.11.1989. The respondents, however, are claiming these benefits for ear·
lier periods. In other words, RTPs are claiming benefits for a period for
E which a similar benefit has not been conferred on casual labourers under
the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation)
Scheme. [216-E-H; 217·A·C]
F
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 80-123
of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Kerala in O.A. Nos. 814, 827, 130,
1146/90, 1012, 1241, 1402, 280, 283, 285, 286-99/91, 310-11/91, 321-25/91,
386-87/91, 504, 507, 509, 511, 522, 577, 686, 697/91, 70, 100, 384/92, 893 and
255 of 1991.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 5268/97, 126/96, 124-125/96, 127-130/96 and 131/96.
P.P. Malhotra, C.V.S. Rao, Ms. Anubha Jain, Hemant Sharma, Ms.
H AnExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.