Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
RATAN CHANDRA SAMMANTA AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/05/1993
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
CITATION:
1993 AIR 2276 1993 SCR (3) 751
1993 SCC Supl. (4) 67 JT 1993 (3) 418
1993 SCALE (2)974
ACT:
Retrenchment-Re-employmment under a scheme framed under
directions of the Court-Representations vague, and delayed.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners claimed to he casual labourers of the South
Eastern Railway appointed between 1964-69 and retrenched
between 1975-78.
They prayed
(1) for inclusion of their names in the live casual register
and reemployment according to their seniority, and
(2) for restraining the filling of vacancies from the open
market.
They relied on two circulars issued by the Railway Board
laying down guidelines for the recruitment, retrenchment and
employment of casual labourers. They also relied on two
judgments of this court in 1985 and 1987 which directed the
preparation of a scheme and absorption of casual labourers
in accordance with their scheme.
A scheme was framed in 1987 for employing casual labourers
retrenched before 1981 subject to demonstrating suitability
before 31st March, 1987.
In 1990 the petitioners made their representation to be
considered.
The questions before this court were-
(a) whether the petitioners were entitled as a matter of law
to reemployment and
(b) if they had lost their right, if any, due to delay.
752
Dismissing the petitions, this court,
HELD-1. Right of casual labourers employed in projects to
be reemployed in railways has been recognised both by the
Railways and this Court. But the petitioners only sent in a
vague representation, and there was absence of positive
material that they were in fact appointed and working as
claimed. (754-G)
2. A writ is issued by this court in favour of a person who
has some right and not...for the sake of a roving enquiry
leaving scope for manoeuver.
3. Delay itself deprives a person of big remedy available in
law. In the absence of any fresh cause of action of any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
legislation, a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of
time loses his right as well. (755-A)
4 In any event, more than 15 years have expired, and a host
of others who have in the meantime become eligible and
entitled to claim to be employed would he deprived if the
petitioners’ claim were accepted. (755-B)
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 71 of 1992.
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 323 of 1993.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
J.P. Bhatacharjee, N.R. Choudhry and Somnath Mukherjee for
the Petitioners in W.P.No. 71/93.
S.N. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in W.P. No. 323/93.
Ms. B. Sunita Rao for V.K. Verma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M.SAHAI,J.Casual labourers of South Eastern Railway,
alleged to have been appointed between 1964-69 and
retrenched between 1975-78 have approached this Court for a
direction to opposite parties to include their names in the
753
live casual labourer register after due screening and give
them reemployment according to their seniority. Further
prayer is to restrain the opposite parties from filling
vacancies from open market.
Basis of their claim is two fold, one-circulars issued by
the Railway Board on 8th June and 18th June, 1981 laying
guideline regarding recruitment, retrenchment and employment
of the casual labourers, second-Judgments delivered by this
Court in 1985 and 1987 directing the opposite parties to
prepare a scheme and absorb the casual labourers in
accordance with their seniority.
Issuing of circulars by the Railway Board or decisions by
this Court could not and has not been disputed. Nor it is
disputed that in pursuance of the orders passed by this
Court the opposite parties framed a scheme in 1987 for
employing retrenched casual labourers. On 2.3. 1987 a
letter was issued from the Railway Establishment addressed
to the General Managers for employing casual labourer
retrenched before 1981 if they satisfied the requirements
mentioned therein which is extracted below:
"Pursuant to directions given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in their order dated 23.2.1987,
in W.P. No. 332 of 1986, the Ministry desire
that the cases of project casual labour who
had worked as such before 1. 1.81 and who were
discharged due to completion of work or for
want of further work, may also be considered
for the purpose of implementation of the
scheme contained in the Ministry’s letter of
even No. dated 1.6.84 and 25.6.84 as modified
in the letter dated 11.9.1986.
Representation along with documentary proof
reaching the office mentioned above after
31.3.1987 of those which are incomplete and
also those not made with reference to these
instructions, will not be considered".
The petitioners who claim to have been retrenched due to
completion of Halda project appear to have made a
representation in 1990 to the authorities. The
representation runs as under
"Respected sir,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
1, on behalf of the Fetrenched Labour Congress
Union I.O.
754
Tamluk Rly. Station. Dist. Midnaporoe, beg
to humbly submit that the above quoted
Circulars are not obeyed by DEN (Con). TMZ-
DIZHA. S.E. Rly. KGP and they do not follow
the orders of they Supreme Court, High Court
of Calcutta and Central Administrative
Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.
As a result of their indifference, the project
casual labour who are retrenched from service
on or before 1.1.1981 are in great
difficulties and they are not getting scope of
absorption.
All the applications deposited in the office
of the DEN (CON) KGI in terms of Memo No.
PD/E/A/579/A/837 in reference to CE/ C/GRC
dated 25.5.1987 are-to be approved.
In such circumstances, I beg to request you to
intervene in the matter as expeditiously as
humble.
Needless to say, if your grievances are not sympathetically
admitted and the retrenched labour be not absorbed. We
shall have no alternative way except launching vigorous
movement in the next stage.
Your faithfully,
(BHUDEV JALUA)"
The representation does not give any detail. It is not
mentioned if the scheme was given due publicity or not. No
explanation is given as to why the petitioners did not
approach till 1990. Nor it is stated if any of the casual
labourer Not it is stated if any of the casual labourer of
the project were reemployed or not. It is vague and was
lacking in material particulars.
Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners are entitled as
a matter of law for reemployment and other if they have lost
their right, if any, due to delay. Right of casual labourer
employed in projects, to be reemployed in railways has been
recognized both by the Railways and this Court. But
unfortunately the petitioners did not take any step to
enforce their claim before the Railways except sending a
vague representation nor did they even care to produce any
material to satisfy this Court that they were covered in the
scheme framed by the Railways. It was urged by the learned
counsel for petitioners that they may be permitted to
produce their identify cards etc., before opposite parties
who may accept or reject the same after
755
verification. We are afraid it would be too dangerous to
permit this exercise. A writ is issued by this Court in
favour of a person who has some right. And not for sake of
roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering. Delay itself
deprives a person of his remedy available is law. In
absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a
person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his
right as well. From the date of retrenchment if it is
assumed to be correct a period of more than 15 years has
expired and in case we accept the prayer of petitioner we
would be depriving a host of others who in the meantime have
become eligible and are entitled to claim to be employed.
We would have been persuaded to take a sympathetic view but
in absence of any positive material to establish that these
Petitioners were in fact appointed and working as alleged by
them it would not be proper exercise of discretion to direct
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
opposite parties to verify the correctness of the statement
made by the petitioners that they were employed between 1964
to 1969 and retrenched between 1975 to 1979.
The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed. But
there shall be no orders as to costs.
U.R.
Petitions dismissed.
756