Former railway contract labourers must prove eligibility; absorption is not automatic.

The applicants claimed that they had worked as contract labourers handling coal and ash at Guntakal from 1982 to 1992 and sought consideration for absorption in Railway service. In an earlier proceeding, the Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider their cases under the Railway policy and pass a reasoned order.

A screening committee later found that the applicants’ employment documents had been recently prepared and were unsupported by records; the contractor reportedly denied employing them and stated that the certificates were false. The applicants challenged the respondents’ rejection proceedings dated 20 March 2023.

Whether the respondents complied with the earlier Tribunal direction and the applicable Railway policy when reconsidering the applicants’ claims for absorption

Whether the screening committee’s findings and resulting rejection of the applicants’ claims were arbitrary or unsupported by the record

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an aggrieved person may seek relief before the Tribunal.

The Railway Board guidelines described in the impugned proceedings required, among other matters, a recruitment need, verification of each claimant’s genuineness, satisfaction of applicable medical and educational standards and age limits, and proof of ten years’ continuous work; the burden of proving continuous engagement rested on the claimant.

The Calcutta High Court decisions in North Calcutta Co-operative Labour Contract & Construction Society Ltd. v. Union of India and Chiranjit Pal v. Union of India required consideration under the Railway’s policy while leaving eligibility to the administration; they did not establish an automatic right to absorption.

The Tribunal also noted Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and All India Railway Parcel and Goods Porters Union v. Union of India in connection with the claimants’ burden to provide concrete and reliable proof of continuous work.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had constituted a screening committee, examined the claims and issued a reasoned decision in accordance with the prior direction to reconsider eligibility under the applicable policy.

The committee’s report recorded that the documents were recently prepared and that the contractor denied employing the applicants and disowned the certificates. The Tribunal also observed that the documents submitted with the application lacked the contractor’s name and issue dates, with several fields left blank. In light of the claimants’ burden to establish continuous service and the absence of reliable supporting evidence, the Tribunal found no arbitrariness or perversity in the respondents’ decision.

It dismissed the Original Application, closed any pending miscellaneous applications and made no order as to costs.