1. Review petition seeking parity for platform commission vendors to be treated as railway catering service employees. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 391
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Ramaswamy : R.M.Sahai
Mahanagar Railway Vendors Union
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 11356 of 1988
Date of Decision : 4/12/93
Important Points
A decision by a larger bench of the court takes precedence over a decision by a smaller bench. Where conflicting ratios exist, the ruling of the larger bench constitutes the binding precedent.
Subject
Service Law - Judicial Precedent
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Parity of treatment - Precedence of Bench strength - A decision rendered by a three-judge bench is a binding precedent and prevails over a decision rendered by a two-judge bench - Any direction given based on the ratio of a smaller bench, in ignorance of a larger bench's ruling on the same issue, must fall in line with the larger bench's ratio.
Facts of the case:
An association representing persons appointed as vendors on railway platforms sought parity of treatment to be treated as railway catering service employees. A previous order had been passed in favor of similar petitioners based on the ratio of a two-judge bench, whereas a three-judge bench had already decided the issue regarding the status of employees in railway establishments differently.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the law laid down by the three-judge bench is the prevailing law. The previous direction given based on the two-judge bench's ratio was incorrect as the court had been led to believe that the smaller bench's ratio was the governing law.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity of treatment as railway employees and whether the previous order based on a two-judge bench decision warrants review in light of a three-judge bench decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio of a larger bench binds a smaller bench. Consequently, the ruling of the three-judge bench governs the determination of employment status and parity, overriding any contrary directions based on a smaller bench.
Result: The civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Facts of the case:
An association representing persons appointed as vendors on railway platforms sought parity of treatment to be treated as railway catering service employees. A previous order had been passed in favor of similar petitioners based on the ratio of a two-judge bench, whereas a three-judge bench had already decided the issue regarding the status of employees in railway establishments differently.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the law laid down by the three-judge bench is the prevailing law. The previous direction given based on the two-judge bench's ratio was incorrect as the court had been led to believe that the smaller bench's ratio was the governing law.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity of treatment as railway employees and whether the previous order based on a two-judge bench decision warrants review in light of a three-judge bench decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio of a larger bench binds a smaller bench. Consequently, the ruling of the three-judge bench governs the determination of employment status and parity, overriding any contrary directions based on a smaller bench.
Result: The civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend that a prior order based on a two-judge bench precedent should prevail over a three-judge bench ruling. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed that it was mistakenly led to follow a two-judge bench ratio instead of the binding three-judge bench precedent. (Para 1 )
4. A ruling by a larger bench constitutes a binding precedent that prevails over a ruling by a smaller bench. (Para 1 )
5. Review petition dismissed and parity of treatment denied. (Para 1 )
6. Which judgment prevails when there is a conflict between a two-judge bench and a three-judge bench on the same legal issue?
The decision of the larger bench (three-judge bench) is the binding precedent and prevails over the decision of the smaller bench (two-judge bench). (Para 1 )
7. Are persons appointed by commission vendors on railway platforms entitled to parity of treatment as railway employees?
No, following the ratio in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India, such persons are not entitled to parity of treatment as railway employees. (Para 1 )
(1) THIS court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India held that the employees appointed in the statutory canteens as well as those engaged in non-statutory recognised canteens in the railway establishments are the railway employees and they are entitled to be treated as such. In other respects, this court had not granted relief to other non-statutory employees while the writ petitions were pending. The petitioners association representing the persons appointed by the commission vendors on the railway platforms on the various places also claimed parity to be treated as railway catering service. This writ petition came to be dismissed and for review of that order the petitioners have filed this petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in another case Writ Petition No. 575 of 1987 etc., etc. the petitioners therein claimed that there will be an order in same terms as in T.I. Madhavan v. Union of India. That judgment was rendered on 8/09/1987. That was not brought to the notice of the three Judges bench when Khan. case was decided. After Khan case was decided the non-statutory non-recognised cases were directed for disposal. It would appear when W.P. No. 575 of 1987 etc. were posted, instead of bringing to the notice of the court of Khan case, Madhavan case was referred as having being covered. Accordingly, it was ordered thus : "There will be an order as in Madhavan v. Union of India." Thus this court was led to believe that the law holding the field is Madhavans ratio (a two-Judge bench) instead of Khans ratio (three Judge-Bench) a binding precedent. Therefore what is prevailing law is the one laid down by this court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India and the direction given by this court in the above writ petition referred to on 22/09/1992 would also fall in line with Khans ratio. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to the parity of treatment. The question of review does not arise. The civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed accordingly.
