Casual labour regularisation depends on live-register verification and the outcome of related pending proceedings.

The 30 applicants claimed to be former casual labourers engaged under the Assistant Engineer/BG/Construction, N.F. Railway, Bongaigaon, during different periods between 1983 and 1985.

They asserted that their names appeared in the Railway’s Live/Supplementary Casual Labour Register and that similarly placed ex-casual labourers had been regularised under various Railway special drives.

They relied on earlier proceedings, including O.A. No. 281/2005 and connected cases, in which the Tribunal had directed the Railway to scrutinise their records through a responsible committee and provide them an opportunity of hearing; the relevant order was upheld by the Gauhati High Court.

Following successive rounds of scrutiny and litigation, the Railway rejected their claim for absorption/regularisation on the grounds that they could not establish engagement by the Railway, had allegedly worked under contractors, and had not produced original documents proving appointment.

The applicants challenged the rejection and relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in Haren Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 37/2022, which had granted relief to similarly situated persons.

The respondents stated that the decision in Haren Das had been challenged before the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6250/2024, where its operation had been stayed.

Whether the applicants’ claim for regularisation/appointment against Group-D posts should be granted on the basis of their alleged inclusion in the Live/Supplementary Casual Labour Register and the earlier orders passed in their favour.

Whether the applicants were similarly situated to the beneficiaries of O.A. No. 37/2022, notwithstanding the respondents’ contention that they were contractor or outsourced workers rather than Railway employees.

Whether final relief could be granted while the Gauhati High Court was seized of W.P.(C) No. 6250/2024 challenging the decision in O.A. No. 37/2022.

Claims for regularisation of ex-casual labourers must be determined on the basis of the Railway’s official records, particularly the Live/Supplementary Casual Labour Register, and after verification of the individual claimant’s factual status.

The Tribunal applied the binding effect of earlier judicial directions requiring the Railway to conduct a fair scrutiny of available records and provide affected persons an opportunity of hearing.

Relief granted to similarly situated employees may be extended only after establishing factual parity, and the outcome of a pending superior-court proceeding may affect the grant of consequential relief.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants relied substantially on the order in Haren Das, whereas the respondents disputed factual similarity and maintained that the applicants had worked for contractors.

Since the High Court had stayed the Tribunal’s order in Haren Das and the writ petition remained pending, the Tribunal considered it premature to grant the applicants immediate regularisation.

It therefore preserved their claim subject to two factual and legal contingencies: first, the High Court must ultimately uphold or extend the benefit granted in Haren Das; and second, the applicants must establish through the Railway’s records that their names were actually entered in the Live Register.

If the names were absent, the applicants would be treated as contractual or outsourced workers and would not qualify for the claimed benefit.

It disposed of the Original Application with a direction that, if W.P.(C) No. 6250/2024 is dismissed and the beneficiaries in Haren Das receive the claimed relief, the respondents shall consider extending the same benefit to the present applicants after verifying whether their names appear in the Railway’s Live/Casual Labour Register and determining their factual status.

If their names are not found in the Register and they are shown to have been engaged by contractors or through outsourcing, they shall not be entitled to such relief.

No order as to costs was made.