Supreme Court of India
RAM KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1987 INSC 357
- Decided
- 2 December 1987
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
Casual labourers who have completed the requisite period of service are entitled to the same pay and benefits as temporary railway servants, but not to pensionary benefits, and must be regularised promptly.
Summary
The petitioners, casual labourers employed for 10-16 years in the Northern Railway's construction department, filed writ petitions alleging they were denied temporary status, equal pay, and regularisation despite continuous service. The respondents contended that some petitioners had already been empanelled or given temporary appointments, while others refused absorption, and argued that project casual labourers acquire temporary status after 360 days of service. The Court examined the provisions of Paragraph 2511 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the Industrial Disputes Act, noting that casual labour is indispensable and entitled to the rights of temporary railway servants once the service requirement is met. It held that the petitioners are entitled to the same pay and benefits as other temporary workers, but pensionary benefits are not applicable. The Court directed the Railway Administration to promptly screen and regularise the petitioners who have not yet been tested, and ordered the petitions to be disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether project casual labourers are entitled to temporary status and the benefits thereof under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
- Whether casual labourers engaged for extended periods are entitled to equal pay for equal work with maintenance workers.
- Whether casual labourers who acquire temporary status are eligible for pensionary benefits.
- Whether the distinction between open line and project line casual labour can be removed prior to acquisition of temporary status.
- Whether the Railway Administration must regularise the petitioners in the permanent cadre.
Legislation cited
Subjects
casual labourrailwaytemporary statusequal payregularisationpensionIndian Railway Establishment ManualIndustrial Disputes Act
Judgment
)..
A RAM KUMAR & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DECEMBER 2, 1987
B [RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
Indian Railway Establishment Manual-Para 2511-Casual
labour employed by Railway Administration-Engaged on construction
and open line-Whether entitled to same pay-Regularisation and grant
of temporary status to casual labour-Necessity for-Effective imple-
C mentation of provisions for protection of casual labour-Emphasised-
Retiral benefits-Admissibility of
The petitioners, who were engaged on terms of casual labour for
periods varying between 10 and 16 years in the Construction Depart-
ment of the Signal Unit in the Northern Railway, filed writ petitions in
D this Court alleging that though they had put in continuous service for
quite a long period, the Railway Administration-the respondent, had
not treated them as temporary servants and had applied discriminatory
rates of wages, and prayed for a direction to treat them at par with
maintenance workers, and to declare that they were entitled to equal
pay for equal work and absorpiion in the regular cadre in the
E permanent category as per the circulars issued by the responde'1ts.
The respondents in their counter affidavits contested the claim of
~-
the petitioners contending that out of the forty four petitioners, sixteen
had been empanelled, five of whom had been given temporary appoint-
ments, eleven had refused to join and seventeen had been given
F temporary status, and that by the Railway Board's directions on
January 1, 1984, project casual labourers were now entitled to all +
privileges that were applicable to open line temporary railway servants,
that temporary status will first be given in the cadre of Khallasis and
then promotion to skilled category, after conducting trade test, and that
the employees in the open line acquired temporary status on completion
G of 120 days of service whereas such status was acquired by the casual
labour in project work on completion of 360 days as formulated under
orders of this Court.
Disposing of the writ petitions,
H HELD: Casual labour seems to be the requirement of the Railway
138
RAM KUMAR v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.] 139
administration and cannot be avoided. The Railway Establishment A
Manual has made provisions for their protection, but implementation is
not effected. Several instructions were issued by the Railway Board and
the Northern Railway Headquarters to remove the difficulties faced by
the casual labour bnt there is slackness in enforcing them. T.his Court
hopes and trusts that such an unfortunate situation will not arise again
and in the event of any such allegation coming to the Court, the B
Administration will have to be blamed. I ;44F-G I
No doubt, the petitioners have put in more than 360 days of
service. But keeping the prevailing practice, distinction between the
casual labour employed in the open line, and in the project line cannot
be obliterated. I ;4 lD-FI
c
The Railway Administration should take prompt steps to screen
such of the petitioners who have not yet been tested for the purpose of
regularising their services. I ; 44C]
The respondents are directed to consider the claims of the D
petitioners promptly and make appropriate orders for their regulari-
sation. I ;440-E]
The petitioners are entitled to the same pay as is admissible to
others, either in the project or in the open line. Retiral benefit of
pension is not admissible. I i44D, BI E
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 15863-15906
of 1984.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
F
D.N. Goburdhan, D. Goburdhan, Ms. Gita Luthra and Ms.
Pinky Anand for the Petitioners.
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Kuldeep Singh,
Additional Solicitor General, C. Ramesh and Mrs. Sushma Suri for
the Respondents. G
?- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The petitioner in each of these
applications under Article 32 of the Constitution is a workman
engaged on terms of casual labour for periods varying between 10 H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.
A and 16 years in the Construction Department of the Signal Unit in
the Northern Railway. All the writ petitions having disposed of by a
common judgment as questions of law and fact involved therein are
similar.
B
The petitioners alleged that notwithstanding the fact that each
of them has put in continuous service for quite a long period, the
Railway Administration, respondent herein, has not treated them as
temporary servants and has applied discriminatory rates of wages.
They have asked for a direction to treat the petitioners at par with
maintenance workers and to declare that they are entitled to equal
pay for equal work and have asked for their absorption in the regular
cadre in the permanent category as per the circulars issued by the
respondents. A number of documents and circulars issued by the
Administration have been produced in support of their claim.
The Senior Signal & Telecom Engineer (Power Signalling) has
D filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents challenging the
claim of the petitioners. According to the respondents five out of the
forty-four petitioners in this group of writ petitions had undergone
medical examination and were granted temporary status as Khallasis.
One of them has been directed to be absorbed against a permanent
vacancy in the open line; five others have refused to go to the open
E line for permanent absorption. He further averred that though prior
to the issue of the Railway Board's directions on January 1, 1984,
project casual labourers were not entitled to all the privileges like
House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Casual
Leave, increment etc., they are now entitled to all the privileges as
applicable to open line temporary railway servants after attaining
F temporary status. In Paragraph 23 of the counter-affidavit, it has ("' J
been specifically pleaded tl:at as per the extant rules, temporary
status will first be given in the cadre of Khallasi and then promotion
to skilled category after conducting the trade-test is admissi~le. A
further detailed counter-affidavit has again been filed by another
Senior Signal & Telecom Engineer, wherein along with the affidavit
G particulars of service of each of the petitioners has been provided.
Petitioners have filed a Rejoinder.
At the hearing of the applications, counsel for the petitioners as
also the learned Additionaf Solicitor General were given full oppor-
tunity of placing their arguments and documents. In addition, they
H have also furnished written submissions.
RAM KUMAR v. U.0.1. (MISRA, J.] 141
J
It is stated on behalf of the Administration that out of forty- A
four petitioners sixteen have now been empanelled and of them five
_,, have been given temporary appointments; eleven are said to have
refused to join and seventeen are still continuing with tempr ·ary
status. Learned Additional Solicitor General states that petitioners
are project employees and do not belong to the open line. According B
to him employees in the open line acquire temporary status on
completion of 120 days of service as against 180 days which was the
previous requirement. That status is acquired on completion of 360
days by casual labour in Project Works as provided in the scheme
' formulated under orders of this Court, though such status were
r acquirable by project casual labourers on completion of 180 days of
continuous employment previously. Learned counsel for the respon-
dents has placed reliance on the definition of 'Project' which means:
"a project should be taken as construction of new lines, major
projects, restoration of dismantled lines and major important open
line works, line doubling, widening of tunnels etc. which are comp-
c
leted within a definite time limit".
D
>' Admittedly the petitioners have put in more than 360 days of
service. Though counsel for the petitioners had pointed out that the
Administration was requiring continuous service for purpose of eligi-
bility, learned Additional Solicitor General on instructions obtained
'r from the Railway Officers present in Court during arguments has
E
clarified that continuity is not insisted upon and though there is break in
such continuity the previous service is also taken into account.
Learned Additional Solicitor General has made a categorical state-
ment before us that once temporary status is acquired, casual
employees of both categories stand at par. Keeping the prevailing
practice in the Railways in view, it is difficult for us to obliterate the
F
distinction between the two categories of emp)oyees till temporary
status is acquired.
With the acquisition of temporary status the casual labourers
-
~
are entitled to:
(1) Termination of service and period of notice (subject to the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947).
G
(2) Scalesofpay.
(3) Compensatory and local allowances.
H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!988] 2 S.C.R.
,;..
A (4) Medical attendance.
,._
(5) Leave rules.
(6) Provident Fund and terminal gratuity.
B (7) Allotment of railway accommodation and recovery of rent.
(8) Railway passes.
1
(9) Advances.
c ( 10) Any other benefit specifically authorised by the Ministry
of Railways. J
It is not disputed that the benefit of Discipline and Appeal Rules is
also applicable to casual labour with temporary status. It is also
conceded that on eventual absorption in regular employment half the
D service rendered with temporary status is counted as qualifying
service for pensionary benefits.
In the Signal and Telecom Construction Organisation under which
the petitioners are working, according to the Railway Administration
further privileges of being regularised in permanent service is affirded
E by giving them access to their regularisation against permanent
vacancies which mostly occur in open line. For such purpose, casual
labour in open line as well as willing project casual labour are
combined for the purpose of screening and forming of panel on the
basis of seniority depending upon the days of work put in. In view of
the submission, learned counsel for the respondents has pleaded that
F the allegation of discrimination does not exist.
Disputes 'arising out of termination of employment and inter se
seniority came before this Court in the Writ Petition No. 147 of 1983
(Inderpal Yadav & Ors v. Union of India. This Court changed the
existing prevalent practice for reckoning seniority and directed that
G seniority of project casual labourers should be combined and pre-
pared departmentwise and categorywise and in terms of the direc-
tions of this Court, steps have been taken. It has been further
contended that by the time these writ petitions were filed, the Railway,
Board's order of Ist of June, 1984, had not been given but with those
directions now holding the field, the ambit of grievances has been
H very much reduced. Learned Additional Solicitor General has gone
RAM KUMAR v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.) 143
to the extent of even saying that nothing survives in the writ A
petitions.
What exactly are the benefits admissible to temporary railway
servants have, however, been seriously debated.
B
Paragraph 2511 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual
i
provides:-
(a) "Casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to all
the rights and privileges admissible to temporary
railway servants as laid down in Chapter XXIII of the
Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The rights and c
privileges admissible to such labour also include the
benefits of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Their
service, prior to the date of completion of six months'
continuous service will not, however, count for any
purposes like reckoning of retirement benefil.s, senio-
D
rity etc. Such casual labourers will, also, be allowed to
carry forward the leave at their credit to the new post
on absorption in regulation service.
(b) Such casual labour who acquire temporary .status, will
not, however, be brought on to the permanent estab-
E
lishment unless they are selected through regular
Selection Boards for Class IV staff. They will have a
prior claim over others to permanent recruitment and
they will be considered for regular employment
without having to go through employment exchanges.
Such of them who join as casual labourers before
F
attaining the age of 25 years may be allowed relaxa-
tion of the maximum age limit prescribed for Class IV
posts to the extent of their total service which may be
either continuous or in broken periods.
(c) It is not necessary to create temporary posts to
G
accommodate casual labourers who acquire temporary
status for the conferment of attendant benefits like
regular scales of pay, increments etc. Service prior to
the absorption against a regular temporary/permanent
post after requisite selection will, however, not consti-
tute as qualifying service for pensionary benefits." H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.C.R.
A It is the stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General that
no pensionary benefits are admissible even to temporary railway
servants and, therefore, that retiral advantage is not available to
• •
casual labour acquiring temporary status. We have been shown the
different provisions in the Railway Establishment Manual as also the
different orders and directions issued by the Administration. We
agree with the learned Additional Solicitor General that retiral
benefit of pension is not admissible to either category of employees.
As already stated, sixteen out of the forty-four petitioners have
already been empanelled and eleven seem to have joined, while
seventeen are continuing on temporary status. We expect the
C Railway Administration to take prompt steps to screen such of the
petitioners who have not yet been tested for the purpose of regulari-
sing their service.
Learned Additional Solicitor General specifically accepted the
position that the petitioners should be entitled to the same pay as is
0 admissible to others either in the project or in the open line. That
would take away inequality which is main grievance of the peti-
tioners. The respondents shall have a direction to consider the clai\ns
of each of the petitioners promptly and make appropriate orders for
their regularisation.
B For over ten years, litigations of this type have been coming to
the Court. About three years back, this Court directed a scheme for
absorption in Yadav's case which has been framed and is operative.
Casual labour seems to be the requirement of the Railway Adminis-
tration and cannot be avoided. The Railway Establishment Manual
has made provisions for their protection but implementation is not
F effective. Several instructions issued by the Railway Board and the
Northern Railway Headquarters were placed before us to show that
the Administration is anxious to take appropriate steps to remove the
difficulties faced by the casual labour but there is perhaps slackness
in enforcing them. We hope and trust that such an unfortunate
situation will not arise again and in the event any such allegation
G coming to the Court, obviously the Administration will have to be
blamed.
The writ petitions are disposed of with the directions indicated
above without any order for costs.
H N.P.V. Petitions disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "casual labour"Sign in to search