Claim for Regularization Fails Without Proof of Employment as Contract Labourer: Central Administrative Tribunal - 2025-06-23

CAT Dismisses Plea for Regularization by 89 Ex-Labourers, Citing Lack of Evidence

Kolkata, WB – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata Bench, has dismissed a petition filed by 89 individuals seeking regularization of their services with South Eastern Railway. The Tribunal, comprising Judicial Member Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen) and Administrative Member Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, ruled that the applicants failed to provide any credible evidence to prove they had ever worked as contract labourers for the railways.

---

Background of the Case

The applicants, led by Shri Bijoy Mandal, claimed they had worked as "Coal and Ash Handling Mazdoors" under contractors at the Adra Loco-Shed since 1982. They argued that having rendered over 10 years of continuous service, they were entitled to be absorbed as permanent employees.

The core of their claim rested on a call letter dated August 21, 2006, issued by the railway authorities, summoning them for a "screening test" to ascertain the genuineness of their employment claim. The applicants asserted that this letter itself proved their status and that they had successfully cleared the screening, making them eligible for regularization, similar to parcel porters who were absorbed following Supreme Court orders.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Applicants' Position: The counsel for the applicants contended that the railway's decision to conduct a screening test was an admission of their status as long-serving contract labourers. They drew parallels with Supreme Court judgments that had directed the regularization of parcel porters and argued that the railway's subsequent rejection of their claim in 2019, on grounds of "no available records," was contradictory and legally untenable. They emphasized that most applicants were now over 50 years old and would face severe hardship without regularization.

• Respondents' Position (South Eastern Railway): The railway's counsel staunchly opposed the plea, raising several key points:

  1. No Proof of Employment: The applicants failed to produce any supporting documents like wage slips, contractor agreements, or identity cards.
  2. Cessation of Work: The steam loco sheds, where coal and ash handling work was performed, were shut down in 1993, making their claim of continuous service questionable.
  3. Doubtful Evidence: The authenticity of the 2006 screening call letter was challenged due to an "unusual numbering pattern," and the railway stated it had no official record of such a screening or its results.
  4. Inapplicable Precedents: The Supreme Court orders cited by the applicants pertained specifically to parcel porters and could not be applied to coal and ash handling labourers.

Tribunal's Analysis and Reasoning

The Tribunal acknowledged the sympathetic view taken by the Supreme Court in recent judgments regarding the absorption of contractual labour. However, it underscored a fundamental legal principle:

"The underlying premise in the law laid down with regard to regularization/absorption of casual/contractual labour is that the beneficiary is indeed a casual/ contractual labour engaged by the Government organization."

The judgment highlighted that the 2006 letter, the sole piece of evidence, was not proof of employment but a call for the applicants to furnish proof . The letter explicitly required them to bring numerous documents, such as contractor agreements, wage lists, and attendance registers, to the screening.

The Tribunal noted:

"A plain reading of the letter reveals that the applicants were called upon to furnish the documentary evidence to prove their status as contractual labour. Although the applicants claim that they appeared for screening and were successful..., they have not been able to back their claim with an iota of evidence."

The court found it critical that the applicants could not produce any credible evidence of having worked for the respondents, either before or after the steam sheds closed in 1993. This failure to establish the basic fact of their engagement was fatal to their case.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the applicants' claim was unsubstantiated, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application (O.A.) as being "devoid of merit." The ruling reinforces the principle that while the judiciary may be inclined to protect the rights of contractual workers, any claim for regularization must first be supported by concrete and verifiable proof of employment.