NATIONAL FEDERATION OF RAILWAY PARCEL PORTERS UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

•



      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 :

            "(i) In order to comply with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judg-
            ment that the Railway should absorb persons supplied by the
B           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
c           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

D            (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
E            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 writ petitions are accordingly disposed of to the above extent.
                                                                               B
R.P.                                                  Petitions disposed of.