Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) Both the applications have assailed the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2006 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. There are 18 petitioners in case of the first application and 15 petitioners in case of the second one who approached the learned Tribunal with separate applications forming two groups. The fact of the case leading to filing of applications before the Tribunal and before us is briefly set out hereunder: These applicants had been engaged since 1983 and onwards by the co-operative bodies as contract labourers and they worked at the Printing and Stationary Department at Fairly Place, Kolkata, of the Eastern Railway, the respondent, as khalasi on daily wages basis. Different contractors were engaged for supplying the labourers as above and all these petitioners were engaged by different contractors. According to those applicants they were entitled to be regularised in Group-D post though they have been working through contractor. In or about 1995 a group of workers likewise the petitioners viz. Subir Mukherjee and others approached the learned Tribunal praying for regularisation of service in Group-D post and the applications were disposed of on 27th February, 1997 with a direction upon the respondent to absorb the petitioners as regular Group-D employees. The aforesaid matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the railway authorities and related SLP was dismissed by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 5 SCC 301 (Union of India & Ors. v. Subir Mukharji & Ors.) . The judgment and order of the learned Tribunal passed in that matter was not interfered with. In paragraph 9 of the said judgment it is observed as follows: "..........Therefore, there was already a Society of which the respondents happened to be members and being the members M/s. Bandel Handling Porters' Cooperative Society Ltd., the contractor supplied them for doing the work of Eastern Railway. As indicated earlier there is no denial on the part of appellants 1 to 5 that the work which the respondents have been doing is of perennial nature. Even otherwise the directions issued by the CAT in its order dated 13.3.1997 have given enough discretion to the Eastern Railway to absorb them as regular Group D employees bearing in mind the quantum of work available on perennial basis and subject to their fitness."
(2.) In paragraph 10 it is observed by the Apex Court that this order was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and question of law was kept open.
(3.) Present applicants, drawing inspiration from the aforesaid judgment and order, had filed application earlier in the Tribunal claiming that they were similarly circumstanced or placed like Sri Subir Mukherjee and others and they were asking for the same reliefs. The said application was disposed of earlier by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 7th September, 2000 being O.A. No. 518 of 1997 by the following orders: "........In view of the above, we direct the respondents to consider the representation of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AT 1998(3) SC 540 (Union of India v. Subir Mukherjee & Ors.) within three months from the date of communication of this order........";