Holding

The scheme is constitutionally valid but must be modified to change the cut‑off date to 1 January 1981 and to be implemented by absorbing workers with the longest service, to avoid violation of Article 14.

Summary

Project casual labourers of Indian Railways, who had served continuously for years, were terminated when their projects ended. They filed writ petitions invoking Articles 41, 42 and 14 of the Constitution, seeking security of employment. The Railway Ministry issued a scheme treating such workers as temporary after 360 days of service and providing phased absorption based on length of service, applicable to those in service as on 1 January 1984. The Supreme Court held that while the scheme was an improvement, the cut‑off date created an arbitrary distinction violating Article 14. The Court modified the scheme, changing the reference date to 1 January 1981 and directing absorption in order of longest service, invoking Section 250 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitions were dismissed and the modified scheme was ordered to be implemented.

Issues considered

Whether the Railway Ministry's scheme for absorption of project casual labour complies with Articles 41, 42 and 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the cut‑off date of 1 January 1984 in the scheme results in arbitrary discrimination.
Whether the scheme can be altered by the Court to ensure constitutional validity.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 41, s. 42
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 250

Subjects

right to workcasual labourindustrial disputesArticle 14Article 41Article 42Railwaysscheme modificationemployment securityequal protection

Judgment

837

A

JNDER PAL YADAV AND ORS. ETC.

v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ETC • u
. April 18, 1985

(D. A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J

Constitution of India, Ari. 41 and 42-Right to work-Casual labour
c
employed on project for a number of ,years-Services of casral labour terminated
on completion of Project-Scheme framed subsequently for casual labour-
Validity of-Guidelines for implementation of Scheme-S.25_G, I.D. Act and Art.
14 of the Constitution.

The petitionerl-work1nen styled as 'Project Casual Labour' in these writ D
petitions and special lc'lve petitions contened that even though they had put in
continuous service for years, their services were terminated on the ground that
the project on which they were en1ployed has been wound up on its completion
and their services 1,1,ere no more needeJ. After the conclusion of the hearing in
some of the matters, the Railway Ministry framed a scheme to find a just and
humane solution affecting the livelihood of the petitionser. It provided that casual
labour employed on projects may be treated as temporary on completion of 360
days of continuous employment.
Disposing of the petitions,

·HELD: 1. (i) By and large the scheme cer'tainly is an improvement on the
present situation though not wholly satisfactory. Hov.:ever the Railv.:_ay being
the biggest employer and hav.ing regard to the nature of its work, it would have F
to engage casual labour and therefore, as a prelimir.ary step towards realisation
of the ideal enshrined in Articles 41 and 42, this Court proposes to put its stamp
of approval on the sch'eme with one major variation which is herein set out.
• [•41D]

1. (ii) The scheme envisages that it would be applicable to casual labour
on projects who were 10 service as on January I, 1984. The choice of this date G
does not commend, for it is likely to introduce an inviduous, distinction between
similarly situated p:!r~on~ and e:ii:pose some workm-!n to arbitrary discrimination
flowing From fortuitous court's ord:!r. since, in som~ m1tters, the court granted
interim stay before the workrn:n could be retrenched while som~ other were not
so fortu'l lte. Those in respect of wh.Jm the court granted interim relief by stay/
suspension of the order of retrenchment, they woul.1 b>! treated in service on
l. 1. (984 While others who fail to obtain interim relief though similarly situ<\tecl Q
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.CR.
A would be pushed down in the implementation of the scheme. Therefore. those
who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to
those who ru-shed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are
entitled to similar treatment. Keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, the
Courfmodifies part 5.1 (a) (i) of the scheme by modifying the date from l.1.1984
to 1. I. 1981. With thic; modification and consequent rescheduling in absor-
ption from that date onward, the scheme framed by Railway Ministry is accep-
B ted and a direction h given thlt it must be implemented by re-casting the stages
consistent with the change in the date as herein directed. [841E-G; 842B-C]

•
(2) To avoid vio~ation of Art. 14, the scientific and equitable way of im-
plementing the scheme is for the Railway administration to prepare, a 1ist of
project casual labour with reference to each division of each railway and then
c start absorbing those with the longest s"rvice. If in the process any adjustments
are necessary, the same muH be done. 1'1 giving this direction, the Court is con·
siderably influenced by the statutory re~ognition of the principle of last come
first go or to reverse it first come last go as enunciated in s.250 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. (8420-F]

D
ORIGINAL JURlSD!CtlON: Writ Petitions Nos. 147, 320-69,
459, 4335-4434/85 etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution).

For the Appearing Parties : B. Datta, Rishi Kesh. M.K. Rama
murli MA. Krishnamurty. Anis Suhrawardy, M.S. Gu}aral, S.C.
Maheshwari, PP.. Singh, C. V. Subba Rao, R.lj. Poddar, C.P.
Pard!y V.K. Verin r, R. P. Singh, lnlira Sawhney, S.C. Pale!, Habans
Singh, G.N. C!rowdhary, G.S. Narinder, RD. Upadhyay, P.K.
Jain, K.R. Nagaraja, Shakil Ahnud Syed, NS. Das Bahl, KR.P.
Pillai, D.Goburdhan, C. Ma/!rotro, SN. Chowdhary, V.K. Panditn,
Manoj Saxena, Madan Sharma, G.S. Narayan, Ms. Halida Khatoon,
F
K.K. Gupta, E.C. Agarwa!a, R. Salish, Ms. A. Subhashini,
Sambandam and Pillai, P.N. Gupta, Mrs. J.i)"as!rree Wad and
Raju Ramac!randran.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,
G DEsAI,J. Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution notwithstanding,
there aro certain grey areas where the rule of hire and fire, a legacy
of laissez-faire, even in Government employment still rules the
roost. Casual labour employed on projects also known as 'projects
casual labour' is one such segment of employment where one may
serve for years and remain a daily rated worker without a weekly
off, without any security of service, without the protection of equal
ll pay for equal work. In short at the sweet will and mercy of the local
iNDERPAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) 839

satraps. Even the formidable railwaymen's unions least cared for A
these· helpless and hapless workmen. Suddenly a torrent of writ
petitions and petitions for special leave awakened this Court to the
plight of these workmen. In quick succession, 48 writ petitions and 32
petitions for special· leave flooded this Court. In each writ petition/
S.L.P., the grievance was that even though the workmen styled as
'project casual labour' had put in continuous .service for years on end B
to wit ranging from 1974 till 1983, yet their services were terminated
with impunity under the specious plea that the project on which·
they were employed has been wound up on its completion and their
services were no more needed. No one is unaware of the fact
that Railway Ministry has a perspective plan spreading over years say
decades and projects are waiting in queue for execution and yet these c
workmen were shunted out (to use a cliche from the raih;ay vocabu·
Jary) without any chance of being re-employed. Some of them rushed
to the court and o.btained interim relief. Some were not so' fortunate,
At one stage some of these petitions were set down for final hearing
and 'the judgment was reserved. When some other similar matters
came up, Mr. K.G. Bhagat, the then learned Additional Solicitor
General, requested the Court not to render the judgment because
he would take up the matter with the Railway Ministry to find a
just and humane solution affecting the livelihood of these unfortu-
nate workmen. As the future of Iakhs of workmen going under the
label of casual project labour was likely to be affected, we repeated- E
ly adjourned these matters to enable the Railway Ministry to work
out a scientific scheme.

Railway Ministry framed a Scheme and circulated the same
amongst others to all the General Managers of Indian Railways
including production units as per its circular No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 F
dated June 1, 1984. In the Scheme it was stated that all the General
Managers were directed to implement the decision of the Railway
' Ministry by the target dates. It was further stated . that a detailed
letter regarding group 5. l(ii) would follow. Such a letter was issued
on June 25, 1984. Thereafter, these matters were set out for examin-
G
ing the fairness and justness of the Scheme and whether the Court
would be in a position to dispose of these petitions in view of the
Scheme. That is how these matters came up before us.

The relevant por.tions of the Scheme read as 1mder:
ff
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 3 S.C.R,

A "5.1. As a result of such deliberations, the Ministry of
Railways have now decided in principle that casuai labour
employed on projects (also known as 'project casual
labour') may be treated as temporary on completion
of 360 days of continuous employment. The Ministry
have decided further as under :
B
(a) These orders will cover :
•
(i) Casual labour on projects who are in service as on
1.1.84 ; and
c (ii) Casual labour on projects who, though not ill. service ·
on I. !.84, had been in service on Railways earlier and
had already completed the above prescribed period
(360 days) of continuous employment or will complete
the said prescribed period of continuous empfoyment
on re-engagement in future. (A detailed letter regard-
D ing this group follows).

(b) The decision should be implemented in phases accord-
ing to the schedule given below:

E Length of service Date from which Date by which
(i.e. continuous may be treated deciSion should
employment). as temporary be implemented
'

(i) Those who have comple- 1.1.1984 31.12.1984
F ted five years of service
as on 1.1.84

(ii) Those who have comple- 1.1.1985 31.12.1985
ted three years but less
than five years of
G service as on 1.1.1984

(iii) Those who have comple- 1.1.198~ 31.12.1986
ted 360 days but less than
three years of service
on J.!.1984
u
INDERPALV. UNION (Desai, J.) 841

(iv) Those who complete I.1.1987 or 31.3.1987 A
360 days after the date on which
1.1.1984 360 days are
completed which-
ever is later.

5.2. The Ministry would like to clarify here that casual B
Jabour on projects who have completed 180 days of
continuous employment would continue to b' entitled
to the benefits now admissible to them (so long as
they fulfil the conditions in this regard) till they
become due for the benefits mentioned in the preced-
ing sub-paragraph." c

By and large the scheme certainly is an improvement on the
present situation though not wholly satisfactory. However, the
Railway being the biggest employer and having regard to the riature
of its work, it would have to engage casual labour and therefore, D
as a preliminary step towards realisation of the ideal enshrined in
Articles 41 and 42, we propose to put our stamp of approval on the
scheme with one major variation which we proceed to herein set
out.

The Scheme envisages that it would be applicable to casual E
Jabour on projects who were in service as on January I, 1984. The
choice of this date does not commend to us, for it is likely to
intr9duce an invidious distinction between similarly situated
persons and expose some workmen to arbitrary discrimination
llowing from fortuitous 'court's order. To illustrate, in some matters,
F
the court granted interim stay before the workmen could be retren-
ched while some other were not so fortunate. Those in respect of
whom the court granted interim relief be stay/suspension of the
order of retrenchment, they would be treated in service on l.1.1984
while others who fail to obtain interim relief though similarly
situated would be pushed down in the implementation of the Scheme. G
There is another area where discrimination is likely to rear its ngly
head. These workmen come from the lowest grade of railway
service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their Federations have
hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect
money and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their
reach. Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C R•

A at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open
unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even
without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation
with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. ff is a Robson's
choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not
/ be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they
B are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment
if not by anyone else at the bands of this Court. Burdened by all

c
l
these relevant considerations and keeping in view all the aspects of
the matter, we would modify part 5.1 (a) (i) by modifying the date
from 1.1.1984 to 1.1.1981. With this modification ahd consequent
rescheduling in absorption from that date onward, the Scheme
framed by Railway Ministry is accepted and a direction is given that
it must be implemented by re-casting the stages consistent with the
change in the date as herein directed.

To avoid violation of Art. 14, the scientific and equitable way
D if implementing the scheme is for the Railway ada;iinistration to
prepare, a list of project casual labour with reference to each divi-
sion of each railway and then start absorbing those with the longest
service. If in the process any adjustments are necessary, the same
must be done. In giving this direction, we are considerably influen-
E ced by the statutory recognition of a principle well known in indus-
trial jurisprudence that the men with longest service shall have priori-
ity over those who have joined later on. In other wor4s, the princi-
ple of last come first go or to reverse it first ccime last go as
enunciated in Sec. 250 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has
been accept~d. We direct accordingly.
F
All these writ petitions and special leave petitions shall stand
disposed of consistent with the scheme as modified by this judgment
and the directions herein given.

The scheme as wonld stand modified by the directions herein
given forms part of thiq judgment and a copy of it sh~ll be annexed
to this judgment.

Learned counsel Shri Anis Suhrawardy has put in the
maximum labour in making a very useful compilation. He must
have spent days and mon1hs 1 The compilation helped 11s the most
ll
lNDERPAL v. UNION (Desai,}.)

in dealing with the writ petitions and the special leave petitions and A
in ascertaining the proper principle. Such a compilation ought to
have been prepared by the Railway administration. Therefore, we
direct the Union of India to pay Rs. 5,000 as and by way of costs to
Shri Anis Suhrawardy, advocate, Supreme Court.

B

M.L.A. Petitions dismissed.