Disposal of Application with Direction to Consider Representation; Merits and Delays Left Open.

The applicants (11 individuals listed on pages 1-2) initially worked as contractual Parcel Porters for the Northern Railway during 1995, claiming to have worked for over 240 days

They sought absorption into regular employment based on a verification report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated February 29, 2000

Earlier, some Parcel Porters had filed Writ Petition No. 433 of 1998, which the Hon'ble High Court disposed of on July 14, 1999, directing verification of the number of days worked

Subsequently, other workers filed Writ – A No. 18778 of 2024 (Parvendra and Others vs. Union of India and Others), which was disposed of without an examination of the merits, directing the petitioners to submit fresh representations to the respondents for consideration

The current applicants, who claim to have been deprived of the benefit of these High Court directions, filed a representation with the competent authority on September 24, 2025

The respondents opposed the Original Application, contending it was barred by limitation, given the engagement in 1995, and that the alleged period of work was not affirmed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to absorb the applicants as Parcel Porters based on the verification report dated February 29, 2000

2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to decide the applicants' representation dated September 24, 2025, within a stipulated period

The Central Administrative Tribunal primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

The Tribunal also acknowledged the earlier directions of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 433 of 1998, which called for verification of working days for Parcel Porters, and Writ – A No. 18778 of 2024, which directed the submission of fresh representations

The Tribunal noted that the applicants were seeking absorption as Parcel Porters based on an Assistant Labour Commissioner's report from 2000 and earlier High Court directions, including one from 2024 that allowed other workers to submit fresh representations

The respondents argued that the application was time-barred since the alleged engagement was in 1995 and the work period was not definitively affirmed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Considering the limited prayer made by the applicants' counsel, which was primarily for a direction to decide their representation dated September 24, 2025, the Tribunal opted to dispose of the matter by directing the applicants to submit a fresh representation

The Tribunal explicitly stated that it did not consider the merits of the applicants' claim nor the issue of delay or laches, leaving these issues open for the respondents to consider

Upon receipt, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within three months thereafter

The Tribunal clarified that it has not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicant’s claim, leaving all such issues open for the respondents’ consideration

All pending M.A.s, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs