(1.) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 21.09.2010 and 16.11.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby OA No. 2341/2009 and RA No. 295/2010 in OA No. 2341/2009 respectively were dismissed. The petitioners are working as Cooks and Helpers in the Signaling and Telecommunication Training Centre, Ghaziabad. The Mess is managed by a Managing Committee chaired by the principal of the Centre and the emoluments to the petitioners are paid by the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Claiming to be railway employees, the petitioners filed OA No. 2341/2009, seeking regularization of their service in conformity with the provisions applicable to the employees of the nonstatutory canteens of the Railways. The OA was contested on the ground that Signaling and Telecommunication Training Centre, where the applicants were working, was a Private Establishment to serve food to Trainees of different Divisions of Northern Railway and N.C. Railway which is run by a temporary Mess Management Committee, consisting of staff members of the training Centre and trainees. It was further stated in the reply filed by the respondents that the mess was being run from the mess funds coming from different divisions by raising the debit on FA & CAO/N. Rly. who, issued a consolidated cheque in favour of STC Mess Management Committee. It was also stated that the mess workers were privately engaged from the market on payment basis and they were paid for their working days only.
(2.) The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 21.09.2010 observed that mere recognition of a canteen in a railway cannot brand it as private. It was noted that Signaling and Telecommunication Training Centre had provided the space, facilities like water, electricity, etc. for the canteen and the mess/canteen was not run by a contractor. It was further noted that the Managing Committee headed by the Principal and the majority of the members were from the Railway Administration. The Tribunal noted the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the mess/canteen was managed by a batch of trainees who come periodically for training, but, felt that the role of the trainees would be with regard to the type of menu for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Tribunal observed that the only hitch seemed to be that the mess/canteen had not been recognized by General Manager of the Northern Railways. The Tribunal was also of the view that the non-recognition of the canteen would not deprive the mess/canteen to be known as non-statutory canteen and, therefore, Signaling and Telecommunication Training Centre was a non-statutory non-recognized mess/canteen. On the issue of regularization, the Tribunal was of the view that long period of work alone cannot be the basis for regularization of railway employees. It was noted that there is no rule in Railways as to how non-statutory non-recognized mess/canteen employees are to be treated. Relying upon the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Ors., 2006 4 SCC 1, the Tribunal held that the applicants were not entitled to be termed as railway employees. The Tribunal, however, directed the respondents to examine and decide the issue of recognition of the canteen as a non-statutory recognized canteen within four months from the date of the order.
(3.) The first question which comes up for consideration in this petitioner is as to whether the employees of the mess which was being run at Signaling and Telecommunication Training Centre, Ghaziabad are railway employees or not.