17 Hostel-Mess Workers’ Railway Regularisation Bid Fails As CAT Finds They Were Not Appointed By Railways

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants’ work in the hostel mess entitled them to regularisation in the Railway Department.

The court held

The Tribunal held that the applicants were not entitled to regularisation in the Railway Department.

It also directed

It dismissed the O.A. for lack of merit, made no order as to costs, and disposed of the associated MAs.

01Facts

The applicants claimed to have worked for years as casual staff in the mess at the Diesel Training Centre hostel, North Eastern Railway, Gonda, and sought regularisation after their claim was rejected by an order dated 7 May 2002.

p. 3 · p. 4

The respondents maintained that the Railway had neither employed the applicants nor controlled or funded the mess, which they described as a private arrangement financed by trainees.

p. 4

The Tribunal had dismissed the application in 2004, and the High Court had dismissed the applicants’ challenge in 2016.

p. 3

The Supreme Court set aside both decisions and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that the earlier finding about the applicants’ other employment lacked a basis.

p. 3

On remand, the Tribunal considered the parties’ submissions and the authorities relied upon by them.

pp. 4–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants’ work in the hostel mess entitled them to regularisation in the Railway Department.

pp. 4–5 · p. 7

ii.2. Whether the cited judgments relied upon by the applicants supported their claim despite the absence of appointment orders issued by Railway authorities.

p. 7

03Law Applied

In Union of India v. Ram Singh Thakur, the Supreme Court held that a direction to frame a regularisation scheme is an executive function and cannot be issued by the judiciary.

p. 5

In Shri Krishan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court held that workers in a non-statutory, non-recognised Railway canteen are not entitled to claim regularisation.

pp. 5–6

The Tribunal applied the principle that regularisation cannot be granted where the claimants were not appointed by the Railway authorities and the mess was not shown to be an establishment for which the Railway had an employment obligation.

p. 7

No statute was identified as forming the basis of the decision.

04Reasoning

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ position that the mess was privately run, funded from trainees’ collections, and subject to no statutory or contractual obligation on the Railway’s part.

p. 4

It found that the applicants had not been appointed by Railway authorities and relied on Shri Krishan to conclude that employment in a non-statutory, non-recognised canteen did not confer a right to regularisation.

pp. 5–7

It distinguished the judgments cited by the applicants on the basis that no Railway appointment order had been issued in this case.

p. 7