SITARAM Vs. BRIDGE INSPECTOR EASTERN RAILWAY HOWRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in Civil Rule No. 5701 (W) of 1968 who are skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workmen, were recruited as casual labourers in different categories under the Bridge Inspector, Eastern Railway, Howrah. According to the case made in the petition though they were recruited during period ranging from 1955 to 1963 and completed much more than six months' service, they have been always and are still treated as casual labourers in violation of the Railway Board Circular of 22. 8. 62 which provided that workmen having six months' continuous service are to be treated as being in temporary status with all benefits attached thereto. The right of the casual labour to be treated as such have been embodied in Chapter XXV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as Establishment Manual) as revised from time to time, which was substituted by the above circular in place of the existing Chapter XXV. The provisions of the said chapter have been given full effect in case of others in the same department but have been disregarded and flouted by the authorities in the case of the petitioners even though they have completed more than six months' continuous service. It was further alleged that by this arbitrary discrimination the petitioners have been deprived of the benefits available to the temporary staff under Chapter XXIII of the Establishment Manual while other casual labourers in the same department similarly situated had been enjoying such benefits after the completion of six months' service. The respondents are not only refusing to give effect to the said provisions but had also given temporary status to persons junior in service and specific instances of such absorption were cited in the case of some workmen who were juniors to the petitioner denying the petitioners equal opportunity to employment under the Railways. The respondents have also been adopting methods to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate rights by making artificial breaks in their service before the expiry of six months of service in contravention of Note 4 of Rule 2501 of Chapter XXV of the Establishment Manual, as the respondents in some cases made artificial breaks in their service for very short period and again reappointed them as casual labourers. There were further allegations that the services of the petitioners were, purported to be terminated without payment of any retrenchment benefit to which they were entitled under provisions of section 25 P of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In these circumstances they prayed by the present application, for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as in temporary service from the respective dates of their completion of six months' continuous service, with all benefits attached to such service and also commanding them to forbear from creating artificial breaks in service preventing them from attaining temporary status and also from retrenching them from service.

(2.) THE rule has been opposed by the respondents who have filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the material allegations in the petition. It was stated in this affidavit that the petitioners are all casual labourers employed in different categories as unskilled, semi-skilled or skilled workmen. It was stated that the petitioners had been employed on occasions as casual labour, being seasonal labour sanctioned for specific work of less than six months' duration and accordingly they are casual labour according to rules. Except the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 none of the petitioners acted continuously for six months. As to petitioner No. 2 he had worked for more than six months on two occasions while the petitioner No. 3 had worked for more than six months on one occasion. When they had worked continuously for more than six months they had been given temporary status with all benefits attached thereto. Accordingly the other petitioners were not eligible to enjoy the benefits of temporary status as claimed by them. Reference was made to the relevant rules regarding casual labour providing that casual labourers may continue to enjoy the benefits of temporary status so long as they would continue to be in service on specific work for which sanction became available if it is found that the workers were working continuously for more than six months. The petitioners not being in continuous employment are not in temporary status as such and not entitled to benefits attached thereto. The allegations of discrimination were denied as no discrimination was made in giving effect to the provisions of Chapter XXV between the petitioners and other casual labourers and no provision of the relevant rules was disregarded or flouted in the case of the petitioners. It was stated that the conditions and benefits of service applicable to permanent and temporary labourers are not applicable to casual labourers and casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not be brought on permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular Selection Board for recruitment as Class IV staff.

(3.) AS to the discriminatory treatment alleged in paragraph 13 of the petition regarding 9 workmen junior to the petitioners specifically mentioned as having been permanently absorbed, it was stated that some casual labourers applied for recruitment in Class IV staff of Lilooah Workshop on information given by the Bridge Inspector, Howrah. Labourers mentioned in Items I to 7 were, absorbed on selection by the Selection Board and were appointed to regular Class IV posts of permanent posts of the said Workshop. The other labourers were not absorbed either because they did not apply or were not selected by the Selection Board. As to the two other persons, namely Gobinda Maity and Man Bahadur, they were posted as chowkidar in 1958 and 1961 under the Bridge Inspector for security of the railway's materials as the other labourers did not agree to accept such post on the ground that such chowkidars had to perform twelve hours' duty in place of eight hours' work for others. The allegations that casual labourers having less number of working days in their credit were given temporary status in supersession of claims of other casual workers were denied. It was further stated that Lakshminarayan, mentioned by the petitioners as an instance of supersession, was never a casual worker under Bridge Inspector, Howrah but on his transfer he was selected by the Selection Board for recruitment in Class IV staff and appointed as Khalashi under the Divisional Engineer, bridge and he had been in continuous service since then. Gyan Bahadur, another person referred by the petitioners, was recruited as casual labourer and was discharged on 23. 7. 68. It was further stated that on the expiry of the period for which a specific work has been sanctioned the casual labourers get automatic discharge and there is thus no question of artificial break in service. Casual labour means under the rules seasonal labour sanctioned for specific work of less than six months' duration. There is no sufficient number of sanctioned works of less than six months' duration to keep all casual labourer continually employed one after another, so that intermittent breaks occur in the service in normal course. It was further stated that the service of the petitioners who acquire temporary status has also to be terminated as and when there is no further sanction to continue them in service. It was also denied that after the discharge of the petitioners fresh hands who were juniors in service were employed be the respondents. The casual labour with more numbers of working days in their credit are re-employed on the commencement of the next sanctioned work. There was no retrenchment as alleged and the petitioner's service was terminated on the expiry of the sanction. According to rules even a workman in temporary service is not entitled to any notice of termination of service on the expiry of the sanction of the post which he holds. Accordingly the petitioners being casual labourers are not eligible for compensation at the rate of 15 days for every complete year of their service. For these reasons, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief claimed by them.