ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) This petition filed by the petitioner Rakesh Kumar prays for setting aside of order dated January 12, 2004 passed by the appropriate Government. By dint of the impugned order, prayer of the petitioner for referring the industrial dispute raised by him to the Labour Court, for adjudication, has been turned down by the appropriate Government.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the file carefully.
(3.) It may be noticed that the petitioner was relieved of his duties on May 31, 2000. He, aggrieved with the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, questioned it before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the CAT, in short) also claiming temporary status and regulanzation with consequential relief. The dispute was adjudicated upon by the CAT. It was answered against the petitioner vide order dated April 30,2001. It was concluded in the following manner: "9. The learned counsel for appearing on behalf of the respondents has, during the course of argument, placed reliance also on the order dated February 12, 1999 passed and clarifications rendered by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in O. A. Nos. 896/1995, 1764/1992 and 817/1994. The following two questions were posed before the Full Bench: (1) Whether bunglow peons in Railways are Railway employees or not; (2) Whether their services are purely contractual and they can be discharged in terms of their contract. 10. The aforesaid questions were answered by the Full Bench by observing that the learned counsel for the parties themselves conceded that the bunglow peons/khalasis in the Railways are not Railway employees and that their services being purely contractual in nature could be terminated at any time in terms of their contract so long as they did not acquire temporary status. The following further question posed before the Full Bench was answered in the negative: (1) Whether upon putting in 120 days continuous service, a bungalow peon/khalasi acquires temporary status. (2) In the totality of the facts and circumstances narrated in the preceding paragraphs and having regard to the legal position clarified by the Full Bench of this Tribunal, I find no force in these OAs. The same are, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.'';