UNIOIN OF INDIA Vs. SH INNOCENT SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION of India has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the judgment dated 20. 4. 2005 rendered by the Central administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in OA No. 1217/2000. By the said judgment, the tribunal has directed that name of the respondent be included in the Live causal Labour Register and he be also considered for re-engagement and other consequential benefits at par with juniors. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to take note of the basic facts. The respondent had worked as casual labour with the Northern Railway at different locations and in different spells as under: i. From 3. 5. 1976 to 30. 5. 1976 under PWI Northern Railway Jagadhari Workshop. ii. From 16. 9. 1980 to 25. 9. 1980 under PWI Northern Railway, Ambala. iii. From 1. 12. 1982 to 14. 2. 1983 under PW1, Northern Railway, Saharanpur.

(2.) IT is clear that on the first two occasions the respondent had worked for 27 days and 10 days respectively whereas his spell on the third occasion was about 2" months. After 1983, the respondent was never engaged. Twelve years thereafter, he filed OA No. 103/1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying for direction for entering his name in the Live Casual Labour Register. This OA was disposed of on 18. 11. 1996 directing the petitioners to examine the fact whether he was qualified to be included in the LCLR and inform the position. This OA was disposed of by common order passed along with other two oas. On 11. 2. 1998, Northern Railway, Ambala Division, got a notice published in the "daily News Paper" inviting the applications from all the persons who had worked as causal labour under Ambala Division for being re-engaged for Group D post. Several persons applied but respondent was not one of those who ever responded and therefore, he lost that opportunity for re-engagement.

(3.) BE that as it may, the case of the respondent was considered having regard to the directions of the Tribunal and order dated 11. 2. 1999 was passed stating that his name could not be registered since he had worked before 1. 1. 1981 and did not file the required representation for his name being entered in the LCLR up to 31. 3. 1987. We may note at this stage that in so far as third spell of the respondent from 1. 12. 1982 to 14. 2. 1983 is concerned, the case of the petitioners as per their record is that the respondent did not work during that period and he had worked only on the first two occasions for 27 days and 10 days respectively.