SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1308

1997(8) Supreme 403
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Railway Majdoor Congress (INTUC) -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6953 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19434 of 1996)
Decided on 1-10-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Respondents : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, Parveen Swarup, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4 : O.P. Tiwari, Advocate, for M/s. O.P. Tewari & Co., Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Contract labour -Regularisation-Members of appellant were engaged as contract labourers for several years doing the job of parcel porters at Railway Station-Question to be decided by Tribunal was which was the "appropriate Government" to decide the question of regularisation of workers-Tribunal should have decided the question itself instead of directing union to avail alternative remedy. (Para 5)

       

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-Leave granted.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the "Tribunal"), Allahabad Bench, dated January 8, 1996 in O.A.No. 1361/95, the present appeal is filed.

3. In the view we propose to take, it is not necessary to set out in detail the facts leading to the filing of the said O.A. before the Tribunal.

The appellant union moved the Tribunal for regularising the services of its members, on the ground that they have been engaged as contract labourers for several years doing the job of parcel porters at Agra Fort (Railway Station) in the light of the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors.1.

4. According to the appellant, the said judgment of this Court was rendered more or less in identical circumstances. The Tribunal, unfortunately, instead of going into the matter and deciding the issue raised before it, declined to entertain the O.A. on the ground that the union has an alternative remedy available to it.

5. The question that was to be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters case (supra) was which is the appropriate Government to decide the question of regularisation of the workers to apply the principle laid down by this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the interests of labourers are involved, we think it would have been appropriate for the Tribunal to decide the question itself instead of directing the union to avail the alternative remedy.

6. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1361/95 and direct it to decide the issue itself on merits in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India & Ors. (supra).

7. The parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions available to them in law before the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Appeal allowed.

*********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top