Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 19
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Mitra
NORTH CALCUTTA CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR Contract AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. 8288 (W) Of 2001
Decided On : 01/12/2004
Ajit Kumar Panja, B.M.GOSWAMI, L.K.CHATTERJI, UTTAM KUMAR MAJUMDER
The court emphasized the importance of proper scrutiny and reasoned decision-making by screening committees in considering claims for absorption of contractor's labourers, and the need to adhere to the applicable rules and regulations prevailing at the time of their initial employment.
Headnote:
CONTRACT LABOUR - ABSORPTION - RAILWAY CONTRACTORS' LABOURERS - ENTITLEMENT TO ABSORPTION - GUIDELINES - INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENTS - APPLICABILITY OF RULES AND REGULATIONS - SCREENING COMMITTEE'S REPORT - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a labour contract and construction co-operative society, sought absorption of their member labourers, who had worked as contractors' labourers under Sealdah Division, Eastern Railway, for over 19 years, as Group 'D' employees. The High Court, in an earlier writ petition, had directed the petitioners to submit a list of eligible candidates for absorption, and the railway authorities were to consider and dispose of their claims within three months. A screening committee was appointed to scrutinize the list, but it rejected the claims on the ground that the list did not tally with the records maintained by the railway administration.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the screening committee's report and the rejection order were based on no reason, arbitrary, and passed without application of mind. It set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioners' claims in light of the earlier High Court judgment and the observations made in the current judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the screening committee's report and the rejection order were valid and justified. 2. Whether the petitioners' claims for absorption were to be considered in light of the earlier High Court judgment and the prevailing rules and regulations at the time of their initial employment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The screening committee did not apply its mind while rejecting the petitioners' claims and failed to provide specific reasons for the rejection. 2. The petitioners' claims were to be considered in light of the earlier High Court judgment and the rules and regulations prevalent at the time of their initial employment, rather than subsequent amendments or judgments.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioners' claims afresh within four weeks, taking into account the earlier High Court judgment and the observations made in the current judgment.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has got a chequerred history. The petitioner No. 1 is a labour contract and construction co-operative society. The member of the petitioner's Society are of contractor's labour and they are engaged in different kinds of job in different places under Sealdah Division Eastern Railway and under the overall administrative control and management of Senior DME (Power ). The respondent No. 6 herein since 1970 to 1981.
( 2 ) INITIALLY, a tender was called from the railway administration sealdah from the contractors for supply of labour for different kinds of job under the said Sealdah Division and after the acceptance of the Tender the LOCO-Foreman of Chiptur Yard directed the contractor to submit the list of labourers and it was submitted and the list has been made annexure 'a' to the writ petition. The claimants herein are said labourers as mentioned in annexure 'a' to the writ petition. According to the petitioner the labourers were given 'token' as an identity in the name of contractor by the Loco-foreman Chitpur Yard. More than nineteen years the petitioners' labourers have been worked since 1970.
( 3 ) SINCE the services of the petitioner's labourers (hereinafter terms as "said labourers") were not regularised they moved a writ petition being W. P. No. 14793 (W) of 1988 praying for absorption under sealdah Division as Group 'd' employees considering their length of service as contractor's labourers. The said writ petition came up for hearing before Hon'ble Justice Altamas Kabir and on 10. 09. 1998 His lordship disposed of the writ petition with the following order:-"having considered the submission made on behalf of the respective parties and the two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court referred to and relied upon by Mr. Panja, I dispose of this writ application with a direction upon the petitioner No. 1 to submit a list of candidates who claimed to be eligible for absorption in keeping with the guidelines in the two cases before the Hon'ble supreme Court within two weeks from date. If such a list is submitted the Railway authorities shall take steps to scrutiny the said list for the purpose of ascertaining the eligibility of the persons concerned to be considered for absorption in the vacancies, said to have been declared in Group 'd' posts under the respondents and upon such scrutiny, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the claims of the said candidates if covered by the guidelines as formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the two above mentioned cases within three months from the date of submission of the list of candidates as indicated hereinabove". The said judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Justice Altamas kabir had been made annexure 'b' to the writ petition. "
( 4 ) APEPAL was preferred by the respondent authorities and the said appeal being MAT No. 518 of 1999 was dismissed by Hon'ble justice A. K. Ganguly and Hon'ble Justice Pratap Kumar Ray on 19. 12. 2000.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners as per the direction of the Hon'ble justice Kabir, the petitioner No. 1 submitted a list of contractor's labourers along with the particulars in detail for the purpose of proving their eligibility.
( 6 ) AS per the direction passed by the Hon'ble Justice Kabir the respondent authorities appointed a screening committee for scrutinising the list of said labourers which was submitted by the petitioner No. 1 and after scrutiny of the same the said screening committee rejected the claims of said labourers on the ground that the same was not tallying with the list kept with the Railway administration. Copy of the said report of the screening committee along with the rejection order dated 4. 01. 2001 which was communicated to the petitioner has been annexured as annexure 'd' to the writ petition.
( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner screening committee did not at all scrutiny the list of said labourers as submitted by the petitioner No. 1 along withtheir all members to
