Holding

The petitioners are not entitled to re‑employment and the writ petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, former casual labourers of the South Eastern Railway appointed between 1964‑69 and retrenched between 1975‑78, sought inclusion in the live casual labour register and re‑employment according to seniority, also requesting that vacancies not be filled from the open market. They relied on Railway Board circulars of 1981 and two Supreme Court judgments (1985, 1987) that directed the preparation of a scheme for absorbing retrenched casual workers. A scheme was framed in 1987 for workers retrenched before 1 January 1981, with a deadline of 31 March 1987 for representation. The petitioners filed a vague representation only in 1990, providing no documentary proof of their employment or of compliance with the scheme. The Court examined whether the petitioners were legally entitled to re‑employment and whether the lapse of more than fifteen years barred their claim. It held that, although the right of casual labourers to be re‑employed is recognised, the petitioners failed to establish their eligibility and the delay extinguished any remedy; consequently the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled as a matter of law to re‑employment under the 1987 scheme
Whether the delay of over fifteen years defeats the petitioners' claim
Whether a writ can be issued on the basis of a vague representation lacking documentary evidence

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

casual labourre‑employmentretrenchmentRailway Board circularsdelaywrit petitionArticle 32seniorityscheme

Judgment

RATAN CHANDRA SAMMANTA AND ORS. A

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

[A.1\1. AHMADI AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.]
B
. MAY 13, 1993

Retrencllment-Re-employmem under a scllemeframed under directions of
tlle Court-Representations vague, and delayed.

The petitioners claimed to be casual labourers of the South Eastern c
Railway ap.pointed between 1964-69 and retrenched between 1975-78.

They prayed

(1) for inclusion of their names in the live casual register and re- D
employment according to their seniority, and
'.
(2) for restraining the fdling of vacancies from the open market.

They relied on two circulars issued by the Railway Board laying down
guidelines for the recruitment, retrenchment and employment of casual E
labourers. They also relied on two judgments of this court in 1985 and 1987
which directed the preparation ofa scheme and absorption ofcasual labourers
in accordance with their scheme.

A scheme was. framed in 1987 for employing casual labourers re· F
trenched before 1981 subject to demonstrating suitability before 31st March,
1987.

In 1990 the petitioners made their representation to be considered.

G
The questions before this .court were-

(a)· whether the petitioners were entided as a matter of law to re-

- employment and

(b) if they had lost their right, ifany, due to delay. H

751
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the petitions, this court,

HELD·l. Right of casual labourers employed in projects to be re·
employed in railways has been recognised both by the Railways and this
Court. But the petitioners onl~· sent in a vague representation, and there was
absence of positive material that they were in fact appointed and working as
B
claimed. (754-G)

2. A writ is issued by this court in favour of a person who has some right
and not for the sake of a roving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuver.

c 3. Delay itself deprives a person of his· remedy available in law. In the
absence of any fresh cause of action of any legislation, a person who has lost
his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. (755-A)

4. In any event, more than 15 years have expired, and a host of others
D who have in the meantime become eligible and entitled to claim to be
employed would be deprh•ed iftbe petitioners' claim were accepted. (755-B)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 71 of 1992.
WITH
E
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 323 of 1993.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

J.P. Bhatacharjee,...N.R.
,
Choudhry
. ' and Somnath Mukherjee for the Petition-
F ers in W.P.No. 71193. · · '

S.N. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in W.P, No. 323/93.

Ms. B. Sunita Rao for V.K. Verma for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.M.SAHAI, J. Casual labourers of South Eastern Railway, alleged to have

H
been appointed between 1964-69 and retrenched between 1975-78 have ap-
proached this Coun for a direction to opposite parties to include their names in the ---
RA TAN CHANDRA v. U.0.1 [R.M. SAHAI, .I) 753

live casual labourer register after due screening and give them re-employment A
according to their seniority. Further prayer is to restrain the opposite parties from
filling vacancies, from open market.

Basis of their claim is two fold, one-circulars issued by the Railway Board
on 8th June and 18th June, 1981 laying guidelined regarding recruitment, retrench- B
ment and employment of the casual labourers; second-Judgments delivered by this
Court in 1985 and 1987 directing the opposite parties to prepare a scheme and
absorb the casual labourers in accordance with their seniority.

Issuing of circulars by the Railway Board or decisions by this Court could
--· not and has not been disputed. Nor it is disputed that in pursuance of the orders C
passed by this Court the opposite parties framed a scheme in 1987 for employing
retrenched casual labourers. On 2.3. 1987 a letter was issued from the Railway
Establishment addressed to the General Managers for employing casual labourer
retrenched before 198 l if they satisfied the requirements mentioned therein which
is extracted below :
D

"Pursuant to directions given.by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in their order dated 23.2.1987, in W.P. No. 332of 1986, the Ministry
desire that the cases of project casual labour who had worked as
such before 1.1.81 and who were discharged due to completion of
work or for want of further work, may also be considered for the E
purpose of implementation of the scheme contained in the Ministry's
letterof even No. dated 1.6.84 and 25.6.84 as modified in the letter
dated 11.9.1986.

Representation along with documentary proof reaching the F
office mentioned above after 31.3 .1987 of those which are incom-
l..
plete and also those not made with reference to these instructions,
will not be considered"'.
'·
The petitioners who claim to have been retrenched due to completion of
Halda project appear to have made a representation in 1990 to the authorities. The G
representation runs as under :
·.,;\,

"Respected sir,

1, on behalf of the Fetrenched Labour Congress Union 1.0. H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A Tamluk Rly. Station. Dist. Midnaporoe,'beg to humbly submit that
the above quoted Circulars are not obeyed by DEN (Con). TMZ-
DIZHA. S.E. Rly. KGP and they do not follow the orders of they
Supreme Court, High Court of Calcutta and Central Administrative
Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.

B
As a result of their indifference, the project casual labou·r who
are retrenched from service on or before 1.1.1981 are in great
difficulties and they are not getting scope of absorption.

All the applications deposited in the office of.,the DEN (CON)
c KGI in terms of Memo No. PD/fJA/579/A/837 in reference to CE/
C/GRC dated 25.5.1987 are.to be approved.

In such circumstances, I .beg to, request you to intervene in "the
matter as expeditiously as humble'.
D
Needless to say, if your grievances are not sympathetically admitted and the
retrenched labour be not absorbed. We shall have no alternative way except
launching vigorous movement in the next stage.
Your faithfully,
(BHUDEV JALUA)"
E
The representation does not give any detail. It is not mentioned if the scheme
was given due publicity or not. No explanation is given as to why the petitioners
did not approach till 1990. Nor it is stated if any of the casual labourer Not it is
stated if any of the casual labourer of the pioject were re-employed or not. It is
F vague and was lacking in material particulars.

Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners are entitled as a matter of law for
re-employment and other if they have lost their right, if any, due lo delay. Right
of casual labourer employed in projects, to be re-employed in railways has been
recognized both by the Railways and this Court. But unfortunately the petitioners
G
did not take any step to enforce their claim before the Railways except sending a
vague representation nor did they even care to produce any material to satisfy this
Court that they were covered in the scheme framed by the Railways. It was urged
by the learned counsel for petitioners that they may be permitted to produce their.
identify cards etc., before opposite parties who may accept or reject the same after
H
RA TAN CHANDRA v. U.O.I [R.M. SAHAI, J] 755
...
verification.We are afraid it would be too dangerous to permit this exercise. Awrit A
is issued by this Court in favour of a person who has some right. And not for sake
of roving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuvering. Delay itself deprives a person
of his remedy available is law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any
legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapseoftime loses his right as well.
From the date of retrenchment if it is assumed to be correct a period of more than B
15 years has expired and in case we accept the prayer of petitioner we would be
depriving a host of others who in the meantime have become eligible and are
entitled to claim to be employed. We would have been persuaded to take a
sympathetic view but in absence of any positive material to establish that these
Petitioners were in fact appointed and working as alleged by them it would not be
proper exercise of discretion to direct opposite parties to verify the correctness of C
the statement made by the petitioners that they were employed between 1964 to
1969 and retrenched between 1975 to 1979.

The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed. But there shall be no
orders as to costs.
·D

U.R. Petitions dismissed.