The burden of proof lies with the employer to establish the nature of engagement and entitlement to benefits for casual labourers. Court cannot interfere with Tribunal's findings unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or error apparent on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.8 of 2002 including the Award dated 16.07.2004 and quash the same.)

1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the entire records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.8 of 2002 including the Award dated 16.07.2004 and quash the same.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:-

The dispute relates to regularisation of the service of 86 workers being the members of the second respondent Union, who were initially engaged as Casual Labour in the Railways. The members of the second respondent were working as Open Line Casual Labour and had subsequently attained temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous service, whereas it is the case of the Railway administration that they were only Project Casual Labourers who became eligible for 1/30th of scale of pay on completion of 180 days of continuous service. It is the case of the Railway administration that the members of the Union are eligible for the benefits as available to the Project Casual Labourers prior to their absorption as regular Railway employees. The casual labours working in the Railways were classified as “Project Casual Labour” and “Open Line Casual Labour”. A scheme was evolved for regularisation of the services of casual labourers in the railways. The contention of the second respondent Union is that the members were engaged only as Open Line casual labours and were entitled to the benefits as applicable to such casual labours prior to their regular absorption in the Railways.

3. It is the case of the Railway administration that the said employees were originally engaged only as project casual labourers and thereafter regularly absorbed in the services of Railways and consequently were entitled to only the benefits as applicable to the project casual labours till their absorption. The services of the members of the second respondent Union were terminated challenging which they filed W.P.No.10709/83 on the file of the Supreme Court of India and pending the said writ petition they were absorbed as regular Railway servants and consequently by order dated 20.10.1984 the Apex Court disposed of the writ petition recording the fact that the said employees had been absorbed in the services of Railways. The dispute was thereafter raised with regard to the period prior to absorption and the benefits as available to them on attainment of temporary status. Consequent to the Ministry of Labour declining reference of the said dispute to adjudication, the second respondent Union filed W.P.No.3117 of 1995 before this Court and by order dated 10.07.2001 the said writ petition was allowed and the Ministry of Labour was directed to reconsider the request for reference. In pursuance to the same, reference was made by the Ministry of Labour to the first respondent herein which was numbered as I.D.No.8 of 2002 and the first respondent by award dated 16.07.2004 held that the members of the second respondent Union are entitled to the relief as claimed by them and directed the petitioner to regularise their services by granting them temporary status on completion of 120 days of service on par with their juniors and also directed the petitioner/Railway to pay the consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the above award passed in I.D.No.8 of 2002 dated 16.07.2004 the petitioner/Railway has come forward with the present writ petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Railway Management submitted that the evidence adduced would categorically show that the members of the second respondent Union were engaged only as Project Casual Labours and not as Open Line Casual Labours. The Tribunal failed to see that the documents placed before it more particularly Ex.M3&Ex.M5 would clearly indicate that the members of the second respondent Union were engaged only as Project Casual Labours. It is very pertinent t