NANDA LAL DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners joined the services under the South Eastern Railway as casual labourers (gangmen). They had put in 6 to 12 years continuous service in the said Railway under the Permanent Way Inspector, Uluberia, District Howrah. They were mostly employed in the works of maintenance, repair and renovation of Railway Track. After continuous service of 6 months from their respective dates of appointment, they acquired temporary status. All the facilities and benefits of temporary Railway servants were made available to them in terms of Rule 2511 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. There was a strike in the Indian Railway commencing from the morning of 8th May, 1974. That was, however, withdrawn by different Trade Unions on the 27th May, 1974. The petitioners went to join their duties on 20th May, 1974. They were not allowed to work by the authorities without assigning any reason. The petitioners were informed by the Permanent Way Inspector, Santragachi (East) that notices would be served on the petitioners terminating their services. One or two co-workers of the petitioners already received such notice from the Assistant Engineer (Track), South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, terminating their services forthwith in pursuance of Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume No.1. It is alleged that the respondents are trying or attempting to terminate the services of petitioners in the grab of retrenchment violating the statutory provisions contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as no reason has been disclosed in the cyclostyled notices nor the petitioners were offered one month's notice pay and 15 days wages to each year of completed services prior to termination of their services. It is further alleged that the said threatened retrenchment of the petitioners was really no retrenchment at all but dismissal for participation in the said strike. According to petitioners, the Administration has also violated provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as the junior of the petitioners have been retained while the petitioners, who are seniors are being retrenched. The petitioners being aggrieved by threatened orders of termination of their services moved this Court in an applications under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rules.

(2.) Mr. Chakraborti, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the notices, being notices of retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said notices having patently violated the provisions of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Sec. 25F of the said Act, the respondents terminated the services of petitioners illegally and the impugned notices were bad and inoperative in the eye of law.

(3.) Chapter XXV of the Railway Establishment Manual deals with casual labour. Rule 2511 lays down the rights and the privileges admissible to casual labour, who are treated as temporary after completion of six months continuous service. Clause (a) provides that casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to all the rights and privileges admissible to temporary railway servants as laid down in Chapter XXIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The rights and privileges admissible to such labour also include the benefits of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, Chapter XXXIII deals with terms and conditions applicable to railway servants and substitutes in temporary service. Rule 2302 deals with termination of service and period of notice.