Important Point
While leaving the question of law (whether CAT has jurisdiction to entertain the application filed on behalf of the Railway Contractor’s labourers) open it would be held that the directions contained in the order dated 13.3.97 passed by CAT, Calcutta are quite fair in the facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be interfered under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Judgment

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-This appeal by Special Leave is filed by the appel­lants challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.3.1997 passed in O.A. No. 1045 of 1995 by the Central Administra­tive Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’) Calcutta.

2. The respondents who are 20 in number filed O.A. No. 1045 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Calcutta alleging inter alia that they have been working as labourers since 1988 till date continuously and uninterruptedly in the printing press of the Eastern Railway at Calcutta. They were engaged as labourers through a contrac­tor viz., M/s. Bandel Handling Porters Cooperative Society Ltd. Sever­al labourers were also engaged by different organizations/labour contractors for doing the work on several development projects under­taken by the Eastern Railway on contract basis. The contracts were entered into between the said co-operative societies and the authori­ties of the Eastern Railway. The respondents have been performing their duties and the functions to the satisfaction of the appellants and no complaint of whatsoever nature was made against their work. They were initially paid daily wages @ Rs. 14/- per day which came to be enhanced to Rs. 31/- per day. It is then alleged that since they have been working for all these years uninterruptedly and continuous­ly, they are entitled to be absorbed and regularised in Group D cate­gory in terms of the Rules and Regulations framed by the Railway Authorities. Respondents further avered that by reason of continuous and uninterrupted service for all these years, they have acquired the temporary status and they are entitled to be absorbed in Group D in the day scale attached thereto. It is then alleged that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Rules were enacted in the year 1971 for the purpose of ameliorating the grievances of the con­tract labourers who have been engaged by the contractors. In the instant case though these respondents discharge their duties and functions under the principal employer through the agency of the said society but the principal employer, namely, the Eastern Railway is now denying the legitimate right to them for being absorbed and regular­ized in the Railway services. The respondents have annexed with their O.A. various documents to indicate their service record. They have also referred to various correspondence ensued between the Railway Authority and the said society. The respondents, therefore, prayed that suitable directions be issued to the appellants to absorb and regularize the services of these respondents in Group D in the pay-scale attached thereto and the appellants be restrained from terminat­ing the services of any of these respondents.

3. The appellant Nos. 1 to 5 have filed their reply denying the claim made by the respondents. According to them they were employees of the society and they are not in any way liable either to absorb and/or regularize them in Group D. They are also not entitled to claim the pay-scale of Group D employees. The CAT on appraisal of evidence on record by its order dated 13.3.1997 upheld the claims set up by the respondents and issued the following directions:-

“The application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to absorb the petitioners as regular Group D employees or such of them who may be required to do the quantum of work which may be available on a prennial basis, if they are otherwise found fit, their pay or wages being fixed at the minimum of the appropriate scale, provided they are still working as contract labourers. This exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from the date of communica­tion of this order."

It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4. Mr. N.N. Goswami, Learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this appeal urged that the respondents being the employees of the society, the appellants are not their employers. Notwithstanding the fact that the w