SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY, SOUTHERN RAILWAY MENS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Railway is aggrieved with the decision of the Labour court at Ext. P10, which granted temporary status to a workman from 1975 onwards. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others : 1985(2) SCC 648, the temporary status can be granted only from 1984 and not from 1976. The same is a measure devised by the Railways which had the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to mitigate the hardship of the casual labourers engaged by the railways. In such circumstances, no regularisation can be granted prior to the date as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; is the compelling argument.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent however, would draw a distinction, insofar as open line casual workers and project casual workers. According to him Inder Pal Yadav (supra) deals with only project casual workers. He relies on Ram Kumar and others v. Union of India and others ( : 1988 (1) SCC 306) and Union of India and others v. Basant Lal and others ( : 1992(2) SCC 679) to contend that casual labourers working under the Railways continuously would be entitled to temporary status on completion of 120 days, if they are engaged in open line and not in a project. The employment of the workman herein was as a casual labour in the open line, which has been proved by the Union by production of documents as indicated in the labour court award. Hence on the basis of the decision reported in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar ( : 2002(8) SCC 400), there is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the award under Article 227, is the plea.

(3.) THE Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court raised two issues as to whether the claim was stale and its justification. The workman admittedly was reinstated only in the year 1995 and the order granting temporary status from 1989 was issued in 1996. Immediately, the workman was before the authority seeking redressal of his grievance and pre -dating the temporary status. The matter was raised as a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 too and considerable delay was occasioned in the reference being made. The ground raised by the Railways as to the claim being stale was hence negatived. It is trite that limitation does not apply to industrial adjudication. (Nithyanand. M Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation [ : AIR 1970 SC 209]). Further the facts too does not command an interference in that finding of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court.