Holding

The workers are deemed temporary Railway servants under the 120‑day rule and are entitled to reinstatement, regularisation and back wages.

Summary

In 1988, 105 workers were appointed as casual labourers in the Construction Division of Northern Railway and were terminated by an oral order after about 143 days of service. They claimed that having worked continuously for more than 120 days, they were entitled to the status of temporary Railway servants under Chapter XXIII of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, which would also make their termination without notice a violation of Rule 2304. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the workers had indeed acquired temporary status, quashed the termination orders and directed reinstatement, regularisation and payment of back wages. The Union of India appealed, arguing that the workers were project workers and should have required 360 days of service for temporary status. The Supreme Court examined the appointment letters and found no evidence that the workers were employed on project work, applied the 120‑day rule, affirmed the Tribunal’s findings, and ordered that all 105 workers be given temporary employee status with back wages from 12 May 1991. The appeal was disposed, effectively dismissing the Union’s challenge.

Issues considered

Whether casual labourers employed in the Construction Division, but not on project work, acquire temporary Railway servant status after 120 days of continuous service.
Whether the 360‑day rule for project workers applies to the respondents.
Whether termination of casual labour without notice violates Rule 2304 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual.
Whether the workers are entitled to back wages and regularisation as temporary employees.

Legislation cited

Indian Railways Establishment Manuals. Chapter XXIII, s. Rule 2304

Subjects

casual labourtemporary railway servantback wagestermination without noticeIndian Railways Establishment ManualRule 2304employment regularisationconstruction divisionproject work

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v. ·-
BASANT LAL AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 18, 1992

[N. M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] B

Civil Se1Vices:

Indian Railways Establishment Manual : Chapter XX/// and Rule
23f#-Casual labour-Temporary Railway se1Vants status-When to be ac- C
corded-Regularisation and payment of back wages-Directions issued.

The respondents were employed as Casual Labour in the Construc-
tion Division of the Northern Railways and their services were terminated
by oral order. The respondents made a representation that they had been
working continuously for more than 120 days and as such were entitled to D
the status of temporary Railway servants. Since there was no response to
their representation, the respondents approached the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal. They relied on a letter dated 29.12.78 issued by the General

r Manager, Northern Railway. As per the letter and the earlier instructions,
casual labourers Miether employed on project or othenrise who bad E
completed four months' continuous service were required to be considered
by the Employment Screening Committee for absorption against Class IV
posts.

The Tribunal gave ;ts finding that since the respondents had worked
for more than 120 days, they would be deemed to have acquired temporary F
status, aud that the termination of their services without notice was
violative of Rule 2304 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual.
Thus, the Tribunal. quashed the termination Orders and directed that the
respondents should be reinstated and posted either In the same zone or
anywhere else depending on the availability of work, and absorbed against G
regular class IV posts as per rules.

The Union of India has preferred the present appeal by special leave,
. challenging the Tribunal's order.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that in case the respon- H
823
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A dents were employed in the construction work on the open line then they
would acquire a temporary status after continuous employment of 120
days, and since they were employed on a project work they could acquire
temporary status only after completing 360 days of serivce.

Disposing of the appeal,. this court,
B
HELD: 1. Chapter XXIII of the Indian Railways Manual lays down
that casual lahoorers who have worked for more than UO days in open
line and those who have worked for more than 360 days on projects acquire
temporary status and would· lie entitled to .the rights and privileges admis-
C sible to temporary Railway servants. Before the ·Tribunal, the respondent-
workers took a clear stand that they were Class IV employees in the
Northern Railways and were employed in the Construction Division. This
was supported by the appointment letters issued to them. They had been
working for over 120 days and as such were entitled to all rights and
privileges admissible to temporary Railway servants. [825C·D; 826E]
D
2. It is directed that all the 105 workers should be accorded the
status of temporary employees. They would be entitled to the salary equal

E
to temporary status employees of the Railway at the initial stage of the pay
from 12.5.91. The respondents have been uprooted from their original
place and even now they are being given daily wage.s at the rate of Rs. 19.10
paise and not being given. the wages equal to a temporary status employee
1
of the Railway at the initial .stage of pay. The Railway Authorities shall pay
the back wages ,to all the employees from 12.5.1991 equal to a tempoi'ary
status employee allowed at the initial stage of pay within two months, after
adjusting any amount already paid to them. [828 G-H; 829A-B]
F
CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 847 of
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.1990 of the Central Ad-
G ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A No. 2467 of1988.
. . I .
Dr. Anand Prakash Sharma, S.N. Sikka and B.K. Prasad for th<>
Appellants.

D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pioki Anand and G.K. Luthra for the
H Respondents.
U.0.1. v. BASANll LAL [KASLIWAt, J.j 825

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.

The Union of India has filed this appeal by grant of Special Leave
challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
B
Bench, New Delhi dated 16.3.1990. Shri Basant Lal and 104 others were
employed on the post of casual labour in July, 1988. Their services were
terminated by oral order dated 19.12.1988. The workers submitted a
representation against their illegal termination. Their contention was that
they had been working continuously for more than 120 days and as such
were entitled to the status of temporary Railway servants. Having received C
no response to their representation, they approached the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. It was an admitted case of the Railway that the casual
labourers who have worked continuously for more than 120 days in open
line and those who have worked for more than 360 days on projects acquire
temporary status and they will be entitled to the rights and privileges D
admissible to temporary Railway servants as laid down in Chapter XXIII
of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual. Thus, the contention of the
Railway was that the workers in the present case were employed in project
work and having completed nearly 143 days of work with effect from
26.7.1988 to 19.12.1988 and having not completed 360 days of continuous
work, they ,were not entitled to acquire temporary status. The case of the E
workers was that they had worked for over 120 days continuously in the
Construction Division of the Northern Railway other than projects and as
·such they had acquired temporary status. The Tribunal held that admit-
tedly all the applicants before them had completed more than 120 days of
continuous service as such they had acquired temporary status. The F
workers had been given casual labour cards. The Tribunal also referred
to a letter of General Manager, Northern Railway dated 29.12.1978 which
contained reference of earlier instructions vide letters dated 21/22.3.1972,
23.5.72 and 27.11.1975 in accordane with which casual labourers whether
employed on project or otherwise who had completed four months con-
tinuous service were required to be considered for employment Screening G
. Committee for absorption against regular class IV posts and casual labour
on project who as a Rule be appointed against Class IV posts that may be
required for operation and maintenance of new assets created and they
were eligible for appointment on new section of the open line of the
Railway concerned irrespective of the limitation of the immediate area of H
••

826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A construction. The workers had alleged in para 37 of their application that
the ;rl"oresaid instructions which had statutory force were not being imple-
mented by the Railways. In. reply to the said allegation the Railways
admitted the same as a "matter of record". The Tribunal in the above
circumstances held that the applicants before them had worked for ·more
than 120 days as such they will be deemed to have acquired temporary
B status and this conclusion was further supported by the letter of the
General Manager, Northern Railway, dated 29.12.1978 extracted above.
The termination of their services without giving them a notice was in ")
,.15

violation of the provisions of Rule 2304 of the Indian R_ailways Estab-
lishment Manual and was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal thus set
C aside and quashed the termination orders and gave a direction to reinstate
them and to consider for engaging them in the zone of the Railways where
they had been engaged, failing which anywhere else in India depending on .
the availability of work. In the circumstances of the case _the Tribunal did
not allow the payment of back wages. It was also directed that the Railway
D shall consider the absorption of the applicants in the regular posts in
Group IV category in accordance with their length of service and the
relevant Rules. The Railway was directed to comply with the above
directions within a period of three months from the date of communication
of the order.

E We have heard Dr. Anand Prakash, Senior Advocate on behalf of
the Union of India and Shri Goburdhan Advocate on behalf of the workers.
It was not disputed before us by learned counsel for the Union of India
that in case the workers were employed ii) the construction work on the
open line then they would acquire a temporary status after continuous
F employment of. 120 days, but if the workers were employed on a project
work then they can acquire temporary status only after completing 360 days
of service. Learned counsel thus strenuously urged that in the present case
the stand taken by the Railways was that the workers were employed in the
Construction Division and being project workers, the rule of 360 days of
service ought to have been applied in their case. It was also contended
G that the Tribunal did not record a finding that the workers in the present
case were engaged on open line and not on project works and in the
absence of such finding the Tribunal was wrong in applying the Rule of
120 days of continuous service in the present case.

H We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the
U.O.l. v. BASANT LAL IKASUWAL, J.] 827

parties and have thoroughly perused the record. The workers had clearly A
come forward with a case that they were employed as casual labour in the
Construction Division and in this regard they placed on record the letter
of appointment Annexure IV which reads as under:-

"INFORMATION -
B
You arc being informed by Asstt. Engineer Construc-
tion/Northern Railway, Kurukshetra by information No. E-
II/AEN/C/KKDEA/ dated 19.7.1988 that you are being
appointed in the post of as Casual Labour. This appointment
shall only be for the monsoon period. In this duration, your
services can be terminated at any moment. You shall not be
c
entitled for any claim in respect of this service.

N.E.IT/R.P.G./N Ambala
Chawni, dated 7/88
Permanent way Inspector/ D
Construction N. Railway".

, In the application filed before the Tribunal the workers took a clear
stand that they were Class IV Employees in the Northern Railways and
were employed in the Construction Division and employed as Gangmcn
and mates. They had been working for over 120 days and as such were E
entitled to all the rights and privileges admissible to temporary Railway
servants. The workers in para 4.37 of their application stated as under:-

"That in fact, the Railway Board, and high officials have always
considered the Class IV employees in high esteem. It has even
ordered by a Railway Circular dated 29.12.1978, which has a F
statutory force that all workers in the Division be made per-
manent and regular after completing the mandatory days in
casual work. It has also noticed, that, Delhi Division and other
Divisions are not following the orders, and they should imple-
ment the orders. A true copy of the Annexurcs is marked as G
Annexure V".

The Railway filed a written statement before the Tribunal and gave
the following reply lo para 4.37.

"Pam 4.37 is admitted only in so far as it is a matter of record. H
•
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A But the same is again ill-motivated and highly misconceived".

The Railways as such did not deny the allegations made in Para 437
in the application filed by the workers, and on the other hand admitted by
saying that it was a "matter of record". The contents of Annexure IV
extracted above clearly goes to show that the information given by Assistant
B Engineer, Construction/Northern Railway, Kurukshetra dated 19.7.1988
workers were appointed in the post of casual labour and it nowhere
mentioned that they were employed as casual labour on a project work.
Apart from this letter, it is nowhere the case of the Railways that there was
any other order of appointment, nor they have placed any documentary 41
c evidence on record before the Tribunal or even before this Court to show
that the workers were employed as casual labour on a project work. A
request was made on behalf of the Union of India that the case may be
remanded to the Tribunal for allowing the Railways to produce relevant
record to show that the workers were employed as casual labour in a
project work. We do not consider it proper in the interest of justice to
D
allow this opportunity to the Union of India at this belated stage and to
further drag on the poor workers in this litigation.
., '
Thus, in the circumstances mentioned above, we do not find any
error in the order of the Tribunal so as to call for any interference. The
E Railways were directed by the Tribunal to comply with the directions within
a period of three months from the date of communication of the order of
the Tribunal dated 16.3.1990. Thereafter the workers had moved a Con-
tempt application before this Court and on 12.3.1991, this Court had
directed the Union of India to give employment to all the respondents
F (workers) within two months and to pay them the salary equal to temporary ......
status employee of the Railways at the initial stage of the pay. During the
proceedings for Contempt of Court it was brought to our notice that the
Railways had given employment to 35 workers initially and for the remain-
ing 70 workers it was stated on 6.1.1992 that they have also been employed.
In view of such statement made on behalf of the Union of India we did not
G consider it necessary to pursue the Contempt Petition any longer and the
same was accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances mentioned above,
we direct that all the 105 workers would be entitled to the salary equal to
a temporary status employee of the Railway at the initial stage of the pay
from 12.5.1991 when two months expired in accordance with our order y

H dated 12.3.1991. It has been brought to our notice on behalf of the workers
U.0.1. v. BASANT I.AL [KASI.IWAL, J.] 829

that they have been uprooted from their original place and even now they A.
are being given daily wages at the rate of Rs. 19.10 paise and not being
given the wages equal to a temporary status employee of the Railway at
the initial stage of pay. We, therefore, direct the Railway Authorities to
pay the back wages to all ihe employees from 12.5.1991 equal to a tem-
porary status employee allowed at the initial stage of pay within two B
months from today after adjusting any amount already received by them.
The Railway-Authorities shall accord the status of temporary employee to
all the 105 workers. The workers shall also be entitled to one set of costs
-
- from the petitioner, Union of India. We dispose of the appeal in the
manner indicated above.

G.N. Appeal d1Sposed of. ·
c

--

-