P KARUNAKARAN Vs. CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT SOUTHERN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing O. P. No. 6195 of 1987. The appellant claims to be the Vice President of the Vegetarian Refreshment Room Worker's Union, Railway Station, Kottayam. His case is that the 3rd respondent was running a Vegetarian Refreshment Room at the Kottayam Railway Station from 1986 as a person who has been 7 given the licence to conduct such vegetarian refreshment room in Railway Station, Kottayam, subject to certain terms. The 3rd respondent - Contractor who had acquired the right to run the Vegetarian Refreshment Room at Kottayam Railway Station had, according to the appellant, employed about 30 workers. It is his case that all the 30 persons were employed as contract labourers to work in that refreshment room. It is stated that they were not employed by the Railways. They were employed by the Contractor and were working under the contractor. The licence under which the 3rd respondent was operating the aforesaid Refreshment Room expired on 31-7-1987 and fresh tenders were invited by respondents 1 and 2 for giving a similar licence to other suitable contractor. The appellant apprehending that the contract labour workers under the 3rd respondent would stand terminated on 31st July; 1987 thereby rendering them jobless, came to this Court under Act. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railway, Madras and the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railway. Trivandrum, respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, not to grant any fresh Vegetarian Refreshment Room at Kottayam Railway Station so as to deny to the appellant and similarly placed employees their jobs. They also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents, 4th respondent being the Union of India, to abolish contract labour in Southern Railway. The last prayer of the appellant is for a mandamus directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 to absorb the appellant and members of his Union into regular service of the Southern Railway regularising their past service. What appears to have been pressed before the learned single Judge is the last prayer of the appellant, for the issue of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1, 2 and 4 to absorb the petitioner and members of the Union into the regular service of the Southern Railway and to regularise their past service.

(2.) The appellant built up his case entirely on the directions of the Supreme Court in the decision reported 1987 (1) SCC 700 between Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway and the Union of India and another. The learned single Judge felt that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case do not govern the facts of the present case and that therefore the appellant is not entitled to claim the relief sought in the original petition on the strength of the said decision. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Before considering the question of applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court, we shall briefly examine the legal rights of the parties in this behalf. The appellant and the members of his Union are members of the staff of the Refreshment Room run by the Licence, who is the 3rd respondent. They are admittedly not employees of the Southern Railway. They were all admittedly employed by the 3rd respondent who was a private contractor who earned a licence for a particular period for running the Railway Refreshment Room in the Kottayam Railway Station. So there was never in existence relationship of matter and servant between the Southern Railway and the appellant. So far as the right of the 3rd respondent to run Vegetarian Refreshment Room is concerned that itself expired on 31-7-1987 and on further extension it stood expired finally on 31-8-1987. Thus, the right of the 3rd respondent to run the Refreshment Room came to an end on 31-8-1987. Thus there is absolutely no scope for the employees of a private contractor to claim right for absorption in the service of the Southern Railways, as such right neither flows from a contract nor from a statutory, provision.