High Court Of Calcutta
A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, A. N. RAY
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EASTERNRAILWAY ASANSOL DIVISION - Appellant
Versus
SATYAJIT MAJUMDAR - Respondent
F. M. A. 629 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/28/1990
RAILWAY SERVANT - CATERING CONTRACTOR - EMPLOYEES OF CATERING CONTRACTOR - WHETHER RAILWAY SERVANTS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 3 (7), 148 (2) OF RAILWAY ACT, 1890 AND SECTIONS 2 (34), 197 (2) OF RAILWAY ACT, 1989 - HELD, EMPLOYEES OF CATERING CONTRACTOR ARE RAILWAY SERVANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were employed by a catering contractor who had a contract with the Railway Administration to provide catering services at a railway station. The catering contractor was subject to considerable supervision and control by the Railway Administration in the manner of execution of the contract. The petitioners claimed that they were railway servants and were entitled to the same benefits and protections as other railway employees. The Railway Administration denied that the petitioners were railway servants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were railway servants within the meaning of the provisions of section 3 (7) read with section 148 (2) of the Railway Act, 1890. The Court also held that the provisions of section 197 (2) of the Railway Act, 1989, which is similar to section 148 (2) of the 1890 Act, also supported the conclusion that the petitioners were railway servants.
Issues: Whether the employees of a catering contractor employed by the Railway Administration are also the servants of the Railway Administration.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners were railway servants based on the following reasoning: * The catering contractor was subject to considerable supervision and control by the Railway Administration in the manner of execution of the contract. * The provisions of section 3 (7) of the Railway Act, 1890, which defines "railway servant," correspond to section 2 (34) of the Railway Act, 1989, and both provisions define "railway servant" as "any person employed by a Railway Administration in connection with the service of a railway." * The provisions of section 148 (2) of the Railway Act, 1890, which supplements the definition of "railway servant," are similar to section 197 (2) of the Railway Act, 1989, and both provisions state that "for the purposes of sections 5, 21, 83, 100, 101, 103, 104, 121, 122, 125 and 137, sub-sections (1) and (2) and section 138, the expression 'railway servant' includes a person employed upon a railway in connection with the service thereof by a person fulfilling a contract with the railway administration." * The petitioners were employed upon a railway in connection with the service thereof and by a person, namely, the catering contractor fulfilling a contract with the railway administration.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the petitioners were railway servants.
( 1 ) EVEN though Tennyson criticised British Laws as "the Lawless Science of our Laws", as "myriads of precedents" resulting in "wilderness of single instances", the Poet also eulogised the system as where "freedom broadens from precedent to precedent". Some amount of "wilderness" also crept in our laws modelled on the British pattern and both certainty and also uniformity were very often the casualities.
( 2 ) BUT very soon our Courts could get over the outdated legal logomachy and hair-splitting niceties and becoming fully alive to the mandate of our National Charter to secure social and economic justice and to ensure that socio-economic justice "shall inform all the institutions of the national life", have made spirited endeavours to broaden the scope of socio-economic justice from "precedent to precedent". As a result, we have now evolved a new juristic principle, a new Jurisprudential approach, to the effect that whenever socio-economic justice appears to be in jeopardy, the Court must go into militant action by throwing asunder its age-worn robe of passive neutrality to rescue socio-economic justice. In the Indian context of even today, with the overwhelming majority living below the poverty-line, socio-economic justice would obviously mean justice to the weaker and the poorer. That is why this Court in two Division Bench decisions in State Bank of India v. A. K. Roy (1988 Labour and Industrial Cases, 585) and in Sudhanshu v. Life Insurance Corporation (92, Calcutta Weekly Notes 1092) has unhesitatingly declared that if any legislation or any administrative action can yield to two views or interpretations, the one in favour of the weaker or the poorer party ought to be accepted, so that social justice can be secured to those who are in dire and greater need therefor.
( 3 ) IN the case at hand, the learned trial Judge Basak, J. has come out with a bold fiat that the servants of a catering contractor employed by the Railway Administration are also the servants of the Railway Administration. My learned brother Ray, J. in his well-written and thought-provoking judgement has also made spirited sorties to uphold the order of Basak, J. and has ruled that not only the catering contractor was a Railway servant, but even the servants employed by him would have that status. These judgements, if correct, would go a long way to advance, protect and secure social justice and implement the mandate in Article 38 of the Constitution. I would like to agree with them, if I can.
( 4 ) THE cause of action arose when the preceding Indian Railway Act of 1890 was in operation, which has been repealed and replaced by the new Railways Act of 1989 with effect from 1st June, 1990. Section 200 of the Act of 1989, however, provides that anything done or purported to have been done or any action taken or purported to have been taken under the Act of 1890 shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1989, be deemed to have been done or taken under the later Act. Be it noted in particular that of the two provisions which are very material for our present purpose, section 3 (7) of 1890-Act defining "railway Servant" corresponds to section 2 (34) of 1989-Act, while section 148 (2) of the 1890-Act, supplementing the definition of "railway Servant" is also similar to section 197 (2) of the 1989-Act.
( 5 ) THAT a catering contractor employed by the Railway Administration and subject to considerable supervision and control by the Administration in the manner of the execution of the contract, is a "railway Servant" within the meaning of the provisions of section 3 (7) read with section 148 (2) of the Railway Act, 1890, is no longer open to question. The provisions of Annexure "a" to the Affidavit-in-Opposition indisputably demonstrate that the catering contractor was subjected to a large number of "do"s and "do Not"s, affirmatory mandates and prohibitory injunctions, as to the manner in which the co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.