Holding

Time Keepers are workers under the Factories Act and must receive uniform pay benefits, rendering the Railway Board’s differential orders unconstitutional under Article 14.

Summary

The case concerned Time Keepers employed in various workshops of the Eastern Railway who were recruited as clerical staff but were held to be workers under the Factories Act, 1948. The Railway Board issued orders granting the Fifth Pay Revision Commission benefits from 18 February 2000 only to certain workshops, excluding Liluah and Kancharpura, alleging a different recruitment pattern. The respondents challenged this differential treatment as violative of Article 14 and sought uniform pay as per the Fifth Pay Commission effective from 1 January 1996. The Supreme Court examined the classification of Time Keepers, the alleged recruitment differences, and the validity of the Board’s orders. It held that Time Keepers are workers and must be treated uniformly across workshops, quashing the Board’s orders and directing pay fixation as per the Fifth Pay Commission from 1 January 1996. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether Time Keepers, though recruited as clerical grade, are workers within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948.
Whether the Railway Board's decision to implement the Fifth Pay Revision Commission recommendations with effect from 18 February 2000 only for certain workshops violates the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether there exists a genuine difference in recruitment patterns for Time Keepers in Eastern Railway that justifies differential treatment.
Whether the orders dated 18 February 2000 and 28 July 2000 issued by the Railway Board are legally valid.
Whether the creation of separate seniority lists and cadres for Time Keepers can lawfully affect their pay scale.

Legislation cited

Factories Act, 1948

Subjects

Article 14Factories ActTime KeepersRailway BoardPay RevisionEqual TreatmentDiscriminationCentral Administrative TribunalSeniorityPay Scale

Judgment

(2008] 17 S.C.R. 892

A UNION OF INDIA & ORS. r--
v. t--""
SATYA BRATA CHOWDHURY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7353-7354 of 2008)

DECEMBER 17, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Time Keepers in
different workshops belonging to Eastern Railway
.,
.

c Administration - Differential treatment of - Held: The Time
keepers were workers under Factories Act - It is not
pennissible to treat workers similarly situated differently - Only ~

because some overtime allowance paid or separate seniority
list was maintained on workshop basis, the same by itself
,,.
would not authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to F
D discriminate the workers working in one workshop with the
workers working in the other- On facts, since workers of other
workshops were given benefit of revised pay structure w.e.f.
,.
1. 1. 1996, there was no justification in ·granting the said
benefits w.e.f. 18.2.2000 to the workers at Liluah and
E Kancharpura workshops - Service Law.
Respondents were appointed as Time Keepers at
Liluah and Kancharpara workshops belonging to the
Eastern Railway Administration. However, they were
treated as clerical grade employees. Other railway
F administration had similar workshop. The concerned
workers filed an OA before CAT praying that a separate y- \,

cadre and a separate seniority list for the Time ~eepers
of the Liluah workshop be maintained and Time Keepers
be not transferred to the post of clerks. The Tribunal
G allowed the OA and held that in view of the judgment of
Supreme Court, the Time Keepers were workers within
the meaning of Factories Act for all practical purposes
and the authorities of Eastern Railway should not be -t
permitted to treat the Time Keepers as a separate cadre
892
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA 893
CHOWDHURY & ORS.

regarding seniority, confirmation, permission and transfer A

.. ""---1
and they were entitled to benefits under the Factories Act.
Pursuant to the said observations, options were obtained
from them as to whether they would continue as clerical
grade staff or workers. They were treated to be workers
under the Factories Act and separate seniority list started B
to be maintained.
The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision

-" Committee were enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1996. By an Office
Order dated 18.2.2000, Railway Board further directed that
in view of standardizing the cadre structure since the
change in recruitment pattern could take place only
c
prospectively in Eastern Railway, the benefit of revised
pay structure would be permitted prospectively only. By
another letter dated 28.7.2000, Railway Board directed
implementation of the said revised pay we.f. 18.2.2000 in
the case of respondents. D
The legality and/or validity of the decision of the
i Railway Board was the subject matter of the Original
Application filed by the respondents. Indisputably, the
only contention raised in support of the said decisions
by the appellant was that the recruitment pattern for the E
post of Time-Keeper in Eastern Railway was different.
The Tribunal held that in the letter of Railway Board dated
28. 7 .2000, it has been indicated that pattern of
recruitment of the Time Keepers in Eastern Railway
differs from the pattern prevalent in other Railways. F
,,. , Accordingly, treatment of this order in Eastern Railway
has to be essentially different from that of the other
Railways. But a bare perusal of the record clearly
indicates that actually it is not so. In view of the above,
the Railway Board Circular dated 18.2.2000 and ·order
G
dated 28. 7 .2000 was quashed and authorities were

. T
directed to fix the pay scale of the applicants as per Fifth
Pay Commission's recommendation for the post of Time
Keeping cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1996 instead of 18.2.2000 and
extend all consequential financial and other benefits in
favour of the applicants within a period of three months H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A from the date of communication of the order along with
arrears. The writ petitions thereagainst filed by appellant
were dismissed by High Court. Hence these appeals.
· The appellant contended that as the respondents had
been treated to be workers under the Factories Act and
B obtained several benefits including overtime, the
appellants were entitled to implement the
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission
with effect from 18.2.2000 instead and in place of 1.1.1996
and such. a classification, was valid and reasonable and
C did not attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Tribunal directed the workers of the
workshops at Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par
0 with their counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and
Chittaranjan locomotive workshop. It was, therefore,
impermissible for the appellant to treat the workers
similarly situated, differently. They were to be treated as
workers under the Factories Act. Only because some
overtime allowance became payable to them or a separate
E seniority list was maintained or a cadre for the said
workers on workshop basis was constituted, the same
by itself, did not authorize the Eastern Railway
Administration to discriminate the workers working in
one workshop with the workers working in the other.
F [Para 17] [903-D-F]
2. The perusal of letter dated 13.7.2000 issued by the
Chief Personnel Manager, Eastern Railways
Administration shows that the claim of appellants that a
different recruitment rules existed for the Time-Keepers
G of different workshops within the Eastern Railway
Administration, is not correct. It has also been so found
by the Tribunal as also by the High Court. [Para 18] [903-
F-G]
3. Appellants themselves annexed with their affidavit
H a letter d.a.ted .16.6.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA 895
CHOWDHURY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Officer, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur to Chief Assistant A
Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkatta wherein it was stated
,,. ""-1
that as cadre/seniority of Time keeping staff is being ·
maintained with General Group Clerks as such benefit of
restructuring were given to the time keeping staff. The
staff posted in Time Office and working as Time keepers B
are governed under Factories Act. The Time keepers of

-
Jamalpur Workshop, thus, have been treated as workers
under the Factories Act and if they had been given the
~
benefit of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision
Commission there is 1'.10 reason to deny the same benefit
to the respondents. [Paras 19 and 20) [904-A-D] c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7353-7354 of 2008.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 20.4.2005 of the
High Court at Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No. 840 of 2004 and W.P.C.T.
D
No. 365 of 2004.
4 A. Sharan, Amit Anand Tiwari, Sanchit Guru, Anil Katiyar
and 8. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.
Gaurav Jain, Abha Jain, Navin Kumar, Shekhar Kumar and
Kamlesh S. Yadav for the Respondents. E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Eastern Railway Administration of Union of India is
---\ before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and
i
order dated 20.4.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the F
-r
Calcutta High Court in WPCT No.365 of 2004 and WPCT
No.840 of 2004 dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants
from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1254
of 2000 and 10th February 2004 passed by the Tribunal in G
Original Application No.1458 of 1997.
.. i- 3. The short question which arose for consideration before
the Tribunal and' consequently before the High Court, was
whether the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay
H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Commission could have been extended in favour of
respondents herein with effect from 18.2.2000 in stead and in
;-----
place of 1.10.1996; and whether !heir claim for fixation of pay ...
scale with effect from 1.1.1996 was justified.
4. Respondents were appointed as Time Keepers in
B different workshops belonging to the Eastern Railway
Administration. Other Railway Administrations also have similar
workshops. Time Keepers, although are recruited in the clerical
grade, in view of this Court's decision in Works Manager, •
Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath & Ors. [AIR 1970 SC "'f
488] are to be treated as workers under the Factories Act, 1948.
c
5. Respondents appointed as Time Keepers at Liluah and
Kancharpara Workshops were, however, being treated as
Clerical Grade employees. Indisputably, the concerned workers
filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative
D Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, which was marked as T.A. No.1585
of 1996, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :
"(i) That a separate cadre and a separate seniority list t
for the Time Keepers of the Liluah Workshop be
maintained and the Time Keepers should not be
transferred to the post of Clerks.
E
(ii) For rescinding and revoking the order dated
14.7.1985 (Annexure-B to the petition) for
transferring petitioner Nos.1 , 2 and 11 from Time
Officer to clerical side.
(iii) To pass an order of injunction restraining the
F
respondents from transferring petitioner Nos.1, 2
~
r- ""'
and 11 from Time Office to the clerical side."
It was allowed, opining :
\' "We find that no records of Kharagpur Workshop, S.E.
G Railway, Diesel Locomotive Workshop, Varanasi or C.L.W.
as stated in the reply were produced during hearing to
demolish the case of the applicants that the Time Keeprs
are treated as a distinct cadre with separate seniority,
promotion and transfer lists. In view of the admission made
H by the official respondents in this respect in the unreported
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA 897
CHOWDHURY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
:

judgment of this Tribunal, mentioned above, that except in A
Eastern Railway, Time Keepers are treated as a separate
---1 cadre, there could be no doubt about the authenticity of the
'-
statements made by the applicants in this petition on this
point. Annexure 'B' to the reply whereby the respondents
wanted to establish that applicant Nos.1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 11 B
refused to be Time Keepers on 26.8.84 has no legal
consequence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court
referred to above, holding that the nature of the duties
discharged by the Time Keepers bring them within the
-t
purview of 'worker' under the Factories Act, 1948. Under
the circumstances, the alleged refusal cannot change the c
legal position.
We are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and
the judgment of our Bench dated 11.5.90. In view of the
findings of the Supreme Court that Time Keepers are
'workers' within the meaning of Factories Act, 1948 for all D
practical purposes, the authorities of Eastern Railway are
-.; - not permitted to treat the Time Keepers in the manner they
have been treating them."
The Tribunal, on the basis of the said findings, issued the
following directions: E.
"On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances
of this case and the submissions of the counsel for the
parties to the proceeding, we quash the order of transfer
dated 14. 7 .85 of the applicant Nos.1, 2 and 11. We also
direct the official respondents here.in to treat the Time F
,, Keepers in the Eastern Railway, Liluah Workshop or
elsewhere in a similar manner as is being done by
Kharagpur Workshop, S.E. Railway, Diesel Locomotive
Workshop, Varanasi and C.L.W. as a separate cadre
regarding seniority, confirmation, promotion and transfer G
etc. and allow them all other benefits admissible to them
under the Factories Act, 1948 .and all these must be
1- finalized and our direction be implemented within six
months from the date of communication of this order."
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

.,

A It furthermore observed :
"The Eastern Railway, being one of the biggest employers,
we hope that this decision will be treated as passed on a t-- ...;
representative suit and the directions given in this
application be made available to the Time Keepers who
B are similarly circur:nstanced but are not parties to this
proceeding. The Railway, as a model employer, will try to
prevent the Time Keepers from coming to this Tribunal for
obtaining similar reliefs repeatedly and thereby prevent
wasting public money in fighting out futile litigations. The
-t·
country is passing through serious economic crisis and all
c unnecessary and useless expenses should be prevented
by taking reasonable steps whenever necessary."
6. Indisputably, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said
observations, options were obtained_ from then:i as to whether
they would continue as clerical grade staff or workmen. They
D
were treated to be workers under the Factories Act. A separate
seniority list started to be maintained. A different cadre was
created. By an order dated 28.10.1991, it was directed:
...The existing staff of Mech./Elect. Deptt. Attached to Time
office should be treated as one Unit and in one seniority
E
group. If anyone of the time office staff except the
petitioners desires to get merged with clerical group of
staff on their own volition in writing, there should be no
cause for rejection."
7. Indisputably, the Central Government constituted the Fifth
F
Pay Revision Committee. It made its recommendations. The
said recommendations were enforced as regards clerical staff r '·
with effect from 1.1.1996. By an office order dated 18.2.2000,
the Railway Board directed implementation of the said revised
pay with effect from 18.2.2000, in the case of respondents,
G stating :
" ... The Ministry have noted that the pattern of recruitment
of Time Keepers in Eastern Railway differs from the
pattern ·prevalent elsewhere. Time Keepers being a r
common category existing in various Railways and
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA 899
CHOWDHURY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Production Units, it has been decided that the recruitment A
pattern, including recruitment qualifications etc. for
induction as Time Keepers at various levels in Eastern
Railway should tan in line with the practice prevailing in
other Railways and Production Units.
2. The Ministry of Railways, with the approval of the B
President, have accordingly decided as under :
(i) Induction at the level of Junior Time Keepers should
continue in accordance with the existing pattern,
which includes direct recruitment through RRBs to
the extent of 66 from amongst candidates C
possessing qualification of matriculation;
(ii) Induction at the level of Senior Time Keepers
should henceforth take place in accordance with
the existing pattern for Sr. Clerks, which would
include direct recruitment through RRBs, to the D
extent of 20% from amongst candidates
possession qualification of graduation and 131/2%
through Limited Departmental Competitive
examination held by RRB's from amongst serving
staff in the grade Rs.3050-4590 and E
(iii) The following pay scales should be allotted to the
Time Keeping Staff of Eastern Railway :
S. Designation Existing Pay Improved
No. Scale (Rs) Pay Scale (Rs)
'
---{ 1. Jr. Time Keeper 3050-4580/- 3050-4590/- F
2. Sr. Time Keeper 4000-6000/- 4500-7000/-"
8. By another letter dated.28.7.2000, it was furthermore
directed by the Railway Board :
"However, with a view to standardizing the cadre structure G
at least for the future, since the change in recruitment
pattern could take place only prospectively in Eastern
Railway, the benefit of the improved pay structure has been
permitted with prospective effect only."
9. We may also, at this stage, place on record, a letter of H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
.__

A the Chief Personnel Officer of the Eastern Railway dated
13. 7 .2000 wherein it was stated that no such recruitment rules
were framed by the Eastern Railway Administration, stating : ~
"Would you please connect" this Railway's letters of even ""·
number dated 28.4.2000 and 8.6.2000 wherein it was
B requested to examine the issue related to the date of effect
. of the upgraded Pay Scale of Time Keeping staff of this
Railway. After collecting information from various Zonal
Railways/Production Units it is understood that the
upgraded pay scale of Time-Keeping category (where -t
c exists) were introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in all Zonal
\

Railways/Production Units except Eastern Railway wherein
instructions were issued by Railway Board that the same
order will be effective from the date of issue of modified
Recruitment Rules in line with Ministerial staff.
D In Eastern Railway no separate Recruitment Rule
was framed after the order of the Hon'ble CAT/Cal on May/
90 for treating the Time-keepers a separate entity as
workers within the meaning of Factories Act, since there
was no intake for filling up the vacancy of Time-keepers
after May/90, but before that the Time-keepers of this
E
Railway were Recruited from the same panel prepared for
clerks i.e. their Recruitment Rule was same as that of the
clerks."
10. The legality and/or validity of the decision of the
Railway Board was the subject matter of the Original
F
Application filed by the respondents. Indisputably, the only
contention raised in support of the said decisions by the r "-
appellant was that the recruitment pattern for the post of Time-
Keeper in Eastern R~ilway was different.
11. Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others filed an Original
G
Application before the Tribunal which was marked as OA
No: 1458 of 19.97. The said application was disposed of by the
Tribunal, holding:
•iwe have gone through the said communication dated
28.7.2000, which has been received.from the Rly. Board.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA 901
CHOWDHURY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

In this there is indication that the recruitment pattern was A
changed, but it is not the case. In subsequent rule depriving
or denying the applicants from getting the pay scales with
effect from 1.1.1996 was hampered by this change. For
the time being we are not inclined to do into the chang~
in the policy stand which may affect the equation of a 8
particular group or grade with the corresponding Ministerial
Staff, which is an internal matter to be sorted out. However,
to the extent the benefits has been extended to the Time,
f
Keeper grades the Eastern Rly, the same should be
equitably applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 as the case
is in respect of the awarding the scales under V CPC. We, c
therefore, partially allow this OA to the extent that the 1

benefit should be awarded with effect from 1.1.1996 to the
present applicants only within 3 months from the date of
communication of fhe order with arrears."
12. Satya Brata Chowdhary and 70 others thereafter filed
'
D
another Original Application before the Tribunal which was
marked as OA No.1254 of 2000.
By a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004, the question, as'
to whether the Eastern Railway Administration was justified in
its stand not to treat the respondents similarly in the matter of E
grant of benefit of revision in the pay scales was answered,
stating :
"We have gone through the said communication dated
18.2.2000 (Annexure-N11) as well as dated 28.7.2000
(Annexure N18), which was received from the Railway, F
Board. In the above said letter of Railway Board dated
28.7.2000, it has been indicated that pattern of recruitment
of the Time Keepers in Eastern Railway differs from the
pattern prevalent in other Railways. Accordingly, treatment
of this order in Eastern Railway has to be essentially G
different from that of the other Railways. But a bare perusal
of the record clearly indicates that actually it is not so."
T It was directed :
"In view of above, the Railway Board's circular dated
H
.
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
·.
A 18.2.2000 (Annexure~A/11) and order dated 28.7.2000
(Annexure-A/10 quashed/set aside. The extent of the
benefit which has been extended to the and CLW,
Chittaranjan (Annexure-A/14) w.e.f 1.1.1996 and also the
letter of the Chief Personnel Officer (Admn) dated
B 13.7.2000 Grades of S.E. Railway/as well as DLW,
Varanasi and CLW, Chittaranjan should also be extended
in favour of the applicants which are also similarly situated
persons and working as Time Keeper in the Liluah
Workshop of EasternRailway. The respondent authorities,
more particularly, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed
c to fix the pay scale of the applicants as per 5th Pay
Commission's recommendation for the post of Time
Keeping Cadre w.e.f.' 1.1.1996 instead of 18.2.2000 and
extend all consequential financial and other benefits in
favour of the applicants within a period· of three months from
D the date of communication of this order along with arrears.
It is made clear that we are not inclined to say anything as
to the payment of interest." +-
As noticed hereinbefore, writ petitions preferred
thereagainst by appellant were dismissed by the High Court.
E
13. The matter came up before this Court for hearing on
8.2.2008 when, inter alia, a contention was raised on behalf of
respondents that the revised pay scales of Time-Keeper at the
Jamalpur workshops had been implemented but the same was -.
denied to the staff at Liluah and Kancharpura workshops.
F
14. An additional affidavit thereafter has been placed on
'
record on behalf of appellant to contend that the Time-Keepers ~
of Jamalpur workshop had been treated as clerical grade staff
and, thus, they are not similarly situated as the respondents.
15. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr.
G Amarendra Sharan, appearing for the appellant, would contend
that as the respondents had been treated to be workers under
the Factories Act and obtained several benefits including
overtime, the appellants were entitled to implement the -+

recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission with ...
H effect from 18.2.2000 in stead and in place of 1.1.1996. Such
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA 903
CHOWDHURY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

a classification, according to the learned counsel, being valid A
and reasonable, does not attract the wrath of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
16. Mr. Gaurav Jain and Mr. Shekhar Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand,
would contend that the purported classification of Time- B
Keepers in different workshops cannot be treated to be valid
warranting different treatments so far as regards
implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay
Commission is concerned.
17. We may, at the outset, notice that the only contention C
raised by the appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the
High Court, was that the recruitment Procedure in the Eastern
Railway Administration was different for the Time-keepers. It
has been held not to be so. The judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA No.1585of1986 0
has been noticed by us. Therein, the Tribunal directed the
workmen of the workshops at Liluah and elsewhere to be
treated at par with their counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and
Chittaranjan locomotive workshop. It was, therefore,
1
impermissible for the appellant to treat the workers similarly
situated, differently. They were to be treated as workers under Ei
· the Factories Act. Only because some overtime allowance
became payable to them or a separate seniority list was
maintained or a cadre for the said workers on workshop basis
was constituted, the same by itself, in our opinion did not
authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to discriminate the F
workers working in one workshop with the workers working in
the other.
18. We may also notice that letter dated 13. 7.2000 issued
by the Chief Personnel Manager, Eastern Railways
Administration; from a perusal whereof it appears that the claim G,
of appellants that a different recruitment rules existed for the
Time-Keepers of different workshops within the Eastern
Railway Administration, is not correct. It has also been so found
... by the Tribunal as also by the High Court .
f 19. The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A General that the Time-Keepers recruited in the Liluah workshop
could be treated differently from their counterparts at Jamalpur
as in the said letter they were not treated as clerical grade staff,
also ·does not appear to be wholly correct. Appellants
themselves have annexed with their affidavit a letter dated
16.6.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Eastern
8
Railway, Jamalpur to Chief Assistant Officer, Eastern Railway,
Kolkatta wherein it was stated :
"As cadre/s~niority of Time keeping staff is being
maintained with General Group Clerks as such benefit of
restructuring has been given to the time keeping staff.
c
The staff posted in Time Office and working as Time
keepers are governed under Factories Act."
20. The Time keepers of Jamalpur Workshop, thus, have
been treated as workers under the Factories Act and if they
o had been given the benefit of recommendations of the Fifth Pay
Revision Commission, we fail to understand why the same
benefit would be denied to the respondents herein.
21. For the· reasons aforementioned, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. The
E appeals are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at
Rs.25,000/-.
D.G. Appeals dismissed.

'-+