ALL INDIA HOT WEATHER WATERMEN ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present O.A. had been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, before the Principal Bench, New Delhi. However, vide order dated 7.7.1995 the Original Application has been transferred to this Bench and the same was received on 7.8.1995. 44 applicants including the association namely "All India Hot Weather Waterman Association have sought for the following reliefs:--

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the applicants 44 in number were engaged as casual labour and Hot Weather Watermen from time to time and they have worked for more than 120 days and, thus, they have acquired temporary status. A detailed chart has been furnished showing the number of working days as casual labour as well as monthly rated casual labour (Ann G). Apart from it 2 supplementary affidavits have also been filed on behalf of the applicants showing the entire period of their working with their respective stations in which they have worked. From a perusal of the details of their working (supplementary affidavits) it appears that all of them have worked upto the year 1991, The assertion of the applicant is that thereafter the servicing he applicants were terminated orally in April, 1992 without any notice. In para 6 of the O.A., applicants have stated the details regarding grant of MRCL status to them and have referred to a report published in 'Aaj' news paper dated 3.6.1994 whereby the Railway Minister has given directions to all the railway divisions that fresh drinking water should be supplied to the passengers and in particular to the women passengers. After noticing the news paper report, applicants made a representation to the Railway Board dated 15.5.1992 regarding regularisation of their services. Since no decision was taken by the Railway Board on the representation, they filed an original application No. 664 of 1993 before the Principal Bench and vide order dated 7.4.1993. Principal Bench directed the Railway Authorities to decide representation of the applicants. The applicants have further stated that the Railway Authorities did not pass any order on the representation of the applicants, and, as such, they filed a contempt petition No. 333 of 1993 before the Tribunal and in that contempt petition respondents filed a reply on 15.4.1994, annexing copy of the order dated 5.4.1994 by which the representation of the applicants was decided. The copy of the order dated 5.4.1994 has been annexed in the present O.A. as Annexure A. The applicants have cited several judgments passed by the Apex Court and submitted that while disposing of the representation of the applicants respondents have refused to regularise the applicants whereas the applicants who have completed 120 days and have been granted MRCL status, they are entitled for the regularisation and, therefore, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence this O.A. which has been contested by the respondents.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents filed a counter reply wherein it has been submitted that casual labour. Hot Weather Watermen are appointed as per sanction from Head Quarters Office from time to time and since there was no sanction, therefore, the services of the applicants were correctly terminated and they have no right of regularisation either under contract or under Industrial Disputes Act. It has further been stated on behalf of the respondents that facility of time scale pay, per month medical pass and P.T.Os does not render a casual labour for automatic regularisation unless he is screened and selected for regularisation by duly constituted Selection Committee. In the present case also the strength of Hot Weather Watermen has been gradually reduced over the years due to water coolers and other drinking water facilities provided at platforms. Mr. G.P. Agarwal, learned COUNSEL for the respondents also objected to the maintainability of the O.A. on the following grounds: