UNION OF INDIA Vs. BASANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The Union of India has filed this appeal by grant of Special Leave challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, .Principal 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 no response to their representation, they approached the Central Administrative 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 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 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 admittedly all the applicants before them had completed more than 120 days of continuous service as such they had acquired temporary status. The 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 accordance with which casual labourers whether employed on project or otherwise who had completed four months continuous service were required to be considered for Employment Screening 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 the construction. The workers had alleged in para 37 of their application that the aforesaid instructions which had statutory force were not being implemented by the Railways. In reply to the said allegation the Railway 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 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 violation of the provisions of Rule 2304 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal thus set 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 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.

(3.) 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 in the construction work on the open line then they would acquire a temporary status after continuous 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 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 R. 120 days of continuous service in the present case.