Supreme Court Directs Railways to Absorb Parcel Porters: Ram Bhajan Das & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (28 November 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2018

Citation: (Not provided in the source)

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can long-serving contract workers in the Indian Railways be granted permanent employment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a batch of writ petitions concerning parcel and goods porters. The core issue revolved around the implementation of a previous Supreme Court judgment that directed the regularization of these workers. The court, in this judgment, provided further directions to ensure the absorption of eligible porters, aiming to resolve the long-standing dispute. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The case originated from a series of writ petitions filed by parcel and goods porters working in various railway stations across India. These workers sought regularization of their services and absorption as Grade D employees in the Railways. They argued that they had been working for extended periods and were entitled to the benefits of regular employment. The petitioners relied on a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*, [(2003) 11 SCC 590], which had directed the Railways to consider the regularization of such workers. However, the implementation of this judgment was not consistent, leading to further litigation. The petitioners sought a direction from the Supreme Court to ensure that the Railways adhere to the previous judgment and absorb them into regular employment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners in these cases approached the Supreme Court seeking implementation of the 2003 judgment in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*. The grievance was that despite the previous judgment, the Labour Commissioners had not verified the factual positions of the petitioners. The Supreme Court passed several orders directing the Labour Commissioners to conduct inquiries and submit reports. The Railways collected copies of these reports. The Supreme Court noted that the Labour Commissioners had completed their inquiries and submitted their reports. The Court then proceeded to issue further directions to ensure the absorption of eligible porters.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The court also relied on its previous judgment in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*, [(2003) 11 SCC 590], which had already established the principle that long-serving contract workers in the Railways should be considered for regularization.

The relevant portion of the judgment in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others* is as follows:

“34. We have carefully examined the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the findings recorded therein and the counter affidavits, reply affidavits and rejoinder filed by the respective parties. The facts disclosed in the report and the findings recorded in regard to the perennial nature of work cannot be overruled. Though we have heard at length both the parties, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Railway Administration was not able to point out to us any valid reason as to why the present writ petitions should not be allowed in terms of the order dated 15.04.1991 made by this Court in similar Writ Petition No. 277 of 1988, particularly when in the matter of absorption of contract labour by a public undertaking on a permanent regular basis. We feel, therefore, it is just and appropriate to issue the following directions to the respondent Union of India and Railway Administration Units:”

The court then listed 11 directions to the Union of India and Railway Administration Units regarding the regularization of the porters.

Arguments

The petitioners, primarily the parcel and goods porters, argued that they had been working for extended periods and were entitled to regularization based on the 2003 judgment. They contended that the Labour Commissioners had completed their inquiries and submitted reports, but the Railways had not taken appropriate action. They sought a direction from the Supreme Court to ensure their absorption into regular employment.

The Railways, on the other hand, raised objections to the absorption of some petitioners, primarily citing a lack of required educational qualifications. However, the Supreme Court noted that there was a power for relaxation of these rules and that this was a one-time measure. The Railways did not raise any other major objections to the absorption of the petitioners.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

• Whether the parcel and goods porters, who had been working for long periods, should be absorbed into regular employment as Grade D employees in the Railways, considering the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the following authority:

• *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*, (2003) 11 SCC 590, Supreme Court of India.

The Court also considered Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment was primarily based on the earlier judgment in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*, [(2003) 11 SCC 590]. The court reiterated the directions given in the earlier judgment and provided further directions to ensure the implementation of the same.

The court noted that the Railways had raised objections based on the lack of required educational qualifications. However, the court held that these objections should be ignored, citing the power for relaxation and the fact that this was a one-time measure. The court also directed that the Railways could raise other objections not covered by the previous judgment, but these objections would be reviewed by the Labour Commissioners.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to provide justice to the long-serving parcel and goods porters. The court emphasized the following points:

• The long service rendered by the petitioners.
• The previous judgment of the Supreme Court in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*, which had already recognized the need for regularization of these workers.
• The fact that there was a power for relaxation of educational qualifications and that this was a one-time measure.
• The need to bring a quietus to the long-standing litigation.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the need to ensure that the directions given in the previous judgment were implemented. The court also took into account the long service of the porters and the fact that they had been working under contract for many years. The court’s decision was also influenced by the need to bring an end to the long-standing litigation and provide a final resolution to the issue.

The court quoted from the previous judgment:

“The facts disclosed in the report and the findings recorded in regard to the perennial nature of work cannot be overruled.”

And also:

“We feel, therefore, it is just and appropriate to issue the following directions to the respondent Union of India and Railway Administration Units:”

And finally:

“Subject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry and the report to be submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Railway Administration should absorb them permanently and regularize their services, the persons to be so appointed being limited to the quantum of work which may become available to them on a perennial basis.”

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from the judgment are:

• The Railways are directed to absorb eligible parcel and goods porters as Grade D employees.
• Objections based on lack of educational qualifications are to be ignored.
• The Railways can raise other objections not covered by the 2003 judgment, but these objections will be reviewed by the Labour Commissioners.
• The effective date of appointment for porters with no objections is 15 December 2018.
• The judgment aims to bring a quietus to the long-standing litigation regarding the regularization of parcel and goods porters.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The Railways are directed to consider the names of the petitioners for appointment, ignoring the objection on educational qualification.
• The Railways are to act in terms of the judgment in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others*.
• If the Railways have any objections other than those covered in the previous decision, they should communicate these to the Labour Commissioners with a copy to the individual porter.
• For porters where the Labour Commissioners have given a report and the Railways have no objection, they shall stand appointed with effect from 15.12.2018.
• Any other objections not covered by the previous decision shall be reported to the Labour Commissioners within 15 days, and the Labour Commissioners shall complete the inquiry within six weeks.
• The Labour Commissioners shall forward the report to the Railways, and the Railways shall act on the report within two weeks.
• For porters where the inquiry has not been completed, it shall be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that long-serving contract workers in the Railways, specifically parcel and goods porters, are entitled to be absorbed into regular employment, and objections based on lack of educational qualifications should not be a bar to their absorption. This judgment reinforces the principle established in the earlier judgment of *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others* and provides a mechanism for its implementation. The Supreme Court has not changed any previous position of law, but has reiterated the same.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Ram Bhajan Das & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* directs the Railways to absorb eligible parcel and goods porters into regular employment, ignoring objections on educational qualifications. This decision is based on the previous judgment in *All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union Vs. Union of India and Others* and aims to provide justice to long-serving contract workers in the Railways. The judgment also provides a clear mechanism for addressing any remaining objections and ensures that the process of absorption is completed expeditiously.