Case Note & Summary
The case involved writ petitions filed by the National Federation of Railway Parcel Porters Union against Union of India and others seeking regularisation of casual parcel porters. The Supreme Court had earlier in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers v. Union of India laid down the law requiring railways to absorb persons supplied by societies for parcel handling to the extent of perennial and permanent posts. By order dated February 5, 1996, this Court directed respondents to appoint a high-level officer to enquire whether petitioners had been working as casual porters for a long time as a perennial source of work and why they had not been regularised. Pursuant to that order, respondents appointed Mr. Vikram Chopra, Chief Marketing Manager, to conduct the enquiry and submit a report. He conducted the enquiry and reported that out of 503 petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 568 and 711 of 1995, the claims of 430 petitioners were verified. They were on the rolls of registered cooperative societies of Lucknow, Moradabad and Allahabad Divisions. Despite working as porters for several years, their names did not find place in earlier petitions, so they were not regularised on the mistaken belief that relief in those writ petitions was confined to persons expressly named. He recommended regularisation of services as per directions: Lucknow, Allahabad, Bikaner and Jodhpur divisions should follow Moradabad Division by conducting a work study at stations where parcel handling was still being done by such labour, arriving at the number of permanent and perennial posts, and screening eligible labourers as per Supreme Court guidelines and Railway rules and absorbing them to the extent posts were justified. He also recommended that one person working at Lucknow Junction of North Eastern Railway be referred to General Manager/N.E. Railway. He could not verify petitioners at Sl. Nos. 23 to 72 because the contract of the society under which they claimed to be working was terminated w.e.f. November 7, 1991, and no record was available. Senior counsel Shri M.N. Krishnamani undertook to provide correct facts to Mr. Vikram Chopra, who was directed to enquire and extend benefit if eligible. As regards petitioner No.73, who claimed to be working at Lucknow Junction in Northern Eastern Railway, the claim could not be verified; the General Manager was directed to verify the address and employment and if the person was on par with regularised candidates, the benefit would be granted. The Supreme Court accepted the enquiry report and reiterated the principle that the Railway should absorb persons supplied by societies to work as labourers for parcel handling to the extent posts are of perennial and permanent nature, and absorption should be based on length of working. It directed the concerned divisions to fall in line with Moradabad Division's work study and screening. For unverified claims, it directed further enquiry and verification to ensure eligible persons receive the benefit. The Court held that services of all petitioners should be dealt with as per the law laid in the earlier judgment and disposed of the writ petitions accordingly.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Regularisation of Casual Workers - Perennial and Permanent Nature of Work - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court had directed a high-level officer to enquire whether petitioners worked as casual porters for long periods as perennial source of work; the officer verified 430 of 503 petitioners on rolls of registered cooperative societies of Lucknow, Moradabad and Allahabad Divisions and recommended regularisation to the extent posts are perennial and permanent - Court directed Lucknow, Allahabad, Bikaner and Jodhpur divisions to conduct work study and screen eligible labourers as per Supreme Court guidelines and Railway rules and absorb them accordingly; also directed further verification for unverified petitioners and petitioner No.73 - Held that services of all petitioners should be dealt with as per law laid in the earlier judgment and writ petitions disposed of accordingly. B) Labour Law - Verification of Claims - Unverified Petitioners Due to Termination of Society Contract and Lack of Record - Not mentioned - For petitioners at Sl. Nos. 23 to 72, whose society contract was terminated w.e.f. November 7, 1991, the enquiry officer could not verify claims due to absence of record; senior counsel undertook to provide details to the officer, who was directed to enquire and extend benefit if eligible - For petitioner No.73, General Manager, Northern Eastern Railway was directed to verify address and employment as Casual Porter at Lucknow Junction Station, and if found on par with regularised candidates, extend benefit - Held that unverified claims be examined and benefit granted if eligibility established.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who had worked as casual parcel porters for several years, were entitled to regularisation in light of National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers v. Union of India, and what directions were necessary for verification and absorption.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions: (i) Lucknow, Allahabad, Bikaner and Jodhpur divisions should follow Moradabad Division by conducting a work study at all stations where parcel handling was still being done by such labour, arriving at the number of posts required on a permanent and perennial basis, and screening all eligible labourers as per Supreme Court guidelines and Railway rules and absorbing them to the extent posts were justified; (ii) the case of one person working at Lucknow Junction of North Eastern Railway was to be referred to General Manager/N.E. Railway for necessary action; (iii) Shri M.N. Krishnamani, senior counsel, was to give all details with correct facts regarding petitioners at Sl. Nos. 23 to 72 to Mr. Vikram Chopra, Chief Marketing Manager, who was directed to enquire into their claims and if found eligible, the benefit of the order passed by the Court in the earlier order would be made available to them; (iv) General Manager, Northern Eastern Railway was directed to have the address of petitioner No.73, namely Mohd. Nafis, son of Aleem, verified and also whether he was working as a Casual Porter at Lucknow Junction Station and if so whether he was on par with those candidates whose services were directed to be regularised; if found working, the benefit of the directions given in the aforesaid decision would be available to him also; (v) the service of all those petitioners be dealt with as per the law laid in the aforementioned judgment.
Law Points
- Railway should absorb persons supplied by societies to work as labourers for parcel handling to the extent posts are of perennial and permanent nature
- Regularisation to be based on length of working as parcel handling labour
- Work study required at stations to determine permanent and perennial posts
- Screening of eligible labourers as per Supreme Court guidelines and Railway rules
- Benefit of earlier judgment extends to similarly situated porters even if not named in earlier petitions
- High-level officer enquiry to verify long-term casual porter work
