Regularization of Railway Parcel and Goods Porters: Supreme Court Judgment

The case of Ram Bhajan Das & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. brought before the Supreme Court of India was a significant litigation concerning the absorption of railway parcel and goods porters into Grade D employment in the Railways. Several writ petitions were filed, all seeking relief based on the landmark judgment in All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union vs. Union of India (2003). The petitioners contended that they had worked as porters for a long time and were entitled to regularization. The dispute primarily revolved around the Railway Administration’s reluctance to absorb them, citing educational qualifications as a barrier.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, who had been working as parcel and goods porters at various railway stations, sought absorption into Grade D posts under the Indian Railways. The basis of their claim was a 2003 Supreme Court decision that had directed the Railways to regularize such workers if they met the eligibility criteria. However, the Railways resisted, arguing that the petitioners did not meet the required educational qualifications.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court again, arguing that their case warranted special consideration due to their prolonged service and the availability of a relaxation provision.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioners argued that they had worked for several years as contract laborers in railway stations performing essential duties.
• They contended that under the 2003 judgment, they were entitled to regularization and permanent employment.
• They highlighted that the Railways had delayed implementing the 2003 order, forcing them into prolonged litigation.
• They also pointed out that the Railways had the power to relax educational qualifications for certain categories, making it unfair to deny them employment on this ground.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The Union of India and the Railway Administration opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for Grade D positions.
• The Railways maintained that their rules and recruitment processes did not allow for automatic absorption of contract laborers.
• They stated that compliance with the 2003 ruling had been undertaken wherever possible, but the petitioners in these cases did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court took a pragmatic approach, recognizing the long-standing nature of the dispute and the petitioners’ contributions. The bench, consisting of Kurian Joseph and Hemant Gupta, made the following observations:

• The court acknowledged that the petitioners had been working for an extended period and that there was a power to relax qualifications.
• It held that this was a fit case for invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice.
• The court noted that denying absorption based solely on educational qualifications was unfair given the factual matrix.

Key Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed the Railway Administration to:

1. Consider the petitioners’ cases for absorption, ignoring the educational qualification objections.
2. Ensure that all eligible petitioners are absorbed within one month of the judgment.
3. Follow the principles laid down in the 2003 judgment while evaluating claims.
4. If the Railways had objections beyond those covered by the 2003 judgment, they were to be communicated to the Labor Commissioner and the concerned individuals.
5. If the Labor Commissioner had already verified claims and found no objections, the petitioners would be deemed appointed as of December 15, 2018.
6. Any objections by the Railways were to be reported within 15 days to the Labor Commissioner, who was directed to resolve them within six weeks.
7. The Railways were ordered to act upon the Labor Commissioner’s reports within two weeks of receipt.

Conclusion

The judgment in this case reinforces the importance of ensuring justice for contract laborers working in government institutions. The Supreme Court’s invocation of Article 142 to facilitate absorption despite technical objections highlights the judiciary’s commitment to fair employment practices. The ruling sets a precedent for other similar cases, ensuring that long-serving workers are not unfairly denied regular employment due to technicalities.

Petitioner Name: Ram Bhajan Das & Ors..
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Indian Railways.
Judgment Date: 28-11-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ram Bhajan Das & Ors vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-11-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category