Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 547
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. Jagannadha Rao, S. B. Majmudar
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE STORES WORKMEN UNION AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2492-2493 of 1998 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 6155-6156 of 1997),
decided on April 29, 1998.
An order of a court or tribunal, once final and binding, cannot be whittled down or challenged in subsequent proceedings, and the principle of res judicata applies.
Headnote:
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES - ABSORPTION AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES - OFFICE ORDER ISSUED BY RAILWAY AUTHORITIES NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH TRIBUNAL ORDER - TRIBUNAL ORDER CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT - EMPLOYEES TO BE ABSORBED AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES WITH EFFECT FROM 1-7-1990 - MONETARY BENEFITS TO BE PAID - EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RETIRED/SUPERANNUATED TO BE PAID MONETARY BENEFITS TILL SUPERANNUATION - LEGAL HEIRS OF EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE DIED TO BE PAID BENEFITS - SURVIVING EMPLOYEES TO BE ABSORBED ON CORRESPONDING POSTS WITH FULL CONTINUITY OF SERVICE.
Fact of the Case:
172 employees working in different cooperative stores run under the auspices of the Southern Railway by different cooperative societies spread over three States, namely, States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka, challenged an Office Order issued by the Railway authorities, which they claimed was not in compliance with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Supreme Court, which directed that they be treated as regular Railway servants with effect from 1-7-1990.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Office Order issued by the Railway authorities was not in complete compliance with the earlier order of the CAT and the Supreme Court, and directed the appellants to absorb the 171 listed employees (excluding one name which was repeated) as direct regular employees of the Railways with effect from 1-7-1990, as ordered by the CAT.
Issues: Whether the Office Order issued by the Railway authorities was in compliance with the order of the CAT and the Supreme Court, which directed that 172 employees be treated as regular Railway servants with effect from 1-7-1990.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the order of the CAT, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, was final and binding between the parties to the litigation, and the appellants could not attempt to whittle down the effect of the order. The principle of res judicata applied, especially since the review proceedings had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court directed the appellants to absorb the 171 listed employees as direct regular employees of the Railways with effect from 1-7-1990, and to pay them all monetary benefits available to them flowing from the order of the CAT and the Supreme Court. The Court also directed that the cases of employees who had retired/superannuated or died after the order of the CAT be dealt with separately, and that their monetary benefits or benefits to their legal heirs be paid after verification.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties we have heard these appeals finally.
3. These appeals are preferred by the appellant-Union of India & others being aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Madras dated 4-2-1997 passed in Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 65 and 66 of 1997 arising out of Contempt Application No. 8 of 1996 in OA No. 305 of 1988. The original order of the Tribunal was in favour of 172 workers working in different cooperative stores run under the auspices of the Southern Railway by different cooperative societies spread over three States, namely, States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka. Earlier, these employees through their Union raised a dispute against the Railway authorities in OA No. 305 of 1988 which came to be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench on 29-6-1990. The order passed by the Tribunal in connection with these 172 workers read as under :
"In the result, the respondents are directed to treat the employees of the Railway Employees Cooperative Stores of the Southern Railway as regular Railway servants and give them the pay scales that are given for regular Railway servants in corresponding posts with effect from 1-7-1990."
4. This order of the Tribunal was carried in appeal before this Court in CA No. 2932 of 1991. A Bench of this Court consisting of Kuldip Singh and B. L. Hansaria, JJ., by order dated 7-9-1994 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The result is that all these 172 listed employees before the Tribunal got covered finally by the order of this Court for being treated as Railway servants. A review petition was also moved against the decision of this Court but the review proceedings have also stood terminated against the appellants. Thereafter, the Railway authorities passed an Office Order dated 26-7-1996 on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal and as confirmed by this Court. That Office Order which was issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madras, recited as follows :
"Since these applicants (employees of the Cooperative Stores) have been working in the Stores before 1-7-1990 and thereafter and since the stores may continue to function even after giving them the status of Railway servants, it is necessary to maintain that they are all working in the Stores since 1-7-1990 on deputation, in terms of para 2337 of IREM."
5. The aforesaid Office Order was resisted in the present proceedings before the Tribunal on behalf of the workers covered by the Tribunals earlier order who submitted through their Union that this is not valid compliance with the order of the Tribunal, and as confirmed by this Court. As per the earlier order of the Tribunal they cannot be treated to be on deputation with the Stores as they were to be treated as direct employees and not employees on deputation to be paid by the Stores. The Tribunal after hearing the parties in the present proceedings took the view that the aforesaid Office Order was not in complete compliance with the earlier order of the Tribunal and as confirmed by this Court. Consequently, the Tribunal passed the following order :
"In the result,
(i) MA No. 91 and MA No. 92 of 1996 are allowed.
(ii) The respondents shall implement the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 305 of 1988 in respect of the 172 persons shown in the annexure of this order within three months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) This OA will be called in the open court on 2-9-1996 to report compliance."
6. It is this order of the Tribunal which has been brought in challenge before us in the present proceedings by grant of special leave. In our view, the order of the Tribunal as confirmed by this Court is final and binding between the parties to the present litigation. It is true as submitted by learned counsel for the Union of India that in similar matter arising out of the order of the Central Administrative Trib
