AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the composite award dated 22.12.08. passed in Reference Case No. 34/98 and Reference Case No. 160/1999.
The following dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for adjudication:
Whether the demand of the union for absorption/regularization of Shri Sipahi Paswan and 29 others (as per list attached) is justified in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India and Ors.? If so, what relief the persons in question are entitled to ?
Both the parties appeared before learned Tribunal and filed their respective written statements. The concerned workmen sought their absorption/regularization on the ground that they have been working as Parcel Porters at Dhanbad Railway Station for a long time and they are entitled to be regularized and absorbed in Railway in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India and Ors. The concerned workmen claimed that they were listed as workers with their photographs and were engaged through the private contractor for perennial nature of work by the railway administration and are entitled for absorption/regularization in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court, which the management of Railway is bound to implement.
The Management, on the other hand, contested the claim of the concerned workmen stating, inter alia, that the concerned workmen are not engaged by them. The issue raised by the concerned workmen does not come within the ambit of the industrial dispute. There is no employer and employees relationship between the Management and the concerned workmen and the sponsoring union has no locus standi to espouse the said cause of the concerned workmen: It has been stated that none of the persons mentioned in the list has been engaged by the Management. As per the exigency of work, the contractors supply the persons for a limited period and for that payment is made to the contractors and not to the workmen. There is no relationship of employer and employees and the concerned workmen are not entitled to the relief claimed for.
Both the parties adduced their evidences, oral and documentary. Learned Tribunal after thorough appraisal and consideration of the facts and evidences, rendered the impugned award as follows:
As per discussions made above and law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 SCC 1119, 14 persons in Reference No. 34 of 1998 and 30 persons in Reference No. 160 of 1999 are entitled for absorption/regularization as per conditions mentioned in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India and Ors. i.e. -
(1) The number of persons to be so absorbed would be limited to the quantum of work available on perennial basis.
(2) Persons absorbed would be entitled to parity with their regular counter-parts in wages and other service benefits from the date of absorption.
(3) and (4) Only such of the Petitioners who were below the age of superannuation and were medically fit would be absorbed.
(5) The absorption must not culminate in disabling the Railway Administration from utilizing the services of the absorbed Railway Parcel Porters for any other manual work depending upon its needs.
(6) Railway Parcel Porters having put in longer periods as contract labour would be preferred to those having put in shorter periods of work.
(7) Other terms of absorption contained in rules of circulars of the Railway Board should also be observed in absorbing and regularizing the Petitioners.
Subject to the verification of the persons by the President/Secretary of Railway Handling Mazdoor Shramik Sahayog Samity Ltd.
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the impugned award and submitted that by the said award those persons who have not worked even for a single day in the railway have been held to be entitled for absorption/Tribunal and adjudicating the said fact and calling out the evidences. I, therefore, find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.