Railway must decide workers’ representation by reasoned order, leaving the merits open.

The applicants sought appointment, following verification, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Bhajan Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 52 of 2016. They claimed to be similarly situated to persons who had received relief under that decision.

The respondents stated that the applicants had worked through a contractor on annual-maintenance services at railway premises, in roles such as bungalow peon, safai karmchari and horticulture worker, and were not railway employees; they distinguished the Supreme Court cases as concerning railway parcel porters.

The applicants had earlier filed W.P. (C) No. 431 of 2022 before the Supreme Court, which declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 and left them to pursue any remedy available under earlier orders.

The Tribunal disposed of the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the applicants could claim appointment by extending to them the relief granted in the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning railway parcel porters.

2. Whether, without deciding the applicants’ entitlement on the merits, the matter should be referred to the competent authority for consideration of their claim.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was the basis for the applicants’ approach to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ram Bhajan Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 52 of 2016, decided on 28 November 2018, and Moloy Samanta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 9 of 2020, decided on 20 November 2020. It noted that the latter order applied to railway parcel porters, not other categories of workers.

The Supreme Court’s order in W.P. (C) No. 431 of 2022 left the petitioners to pursue any remedy available under the earlier decisions.

The Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The applicants’ entry cards and contractor-issued identity cards showed that they had performed work at the railway colony, but the Tribunal noted that they had not pleaded that they were railway parcel porters—the category to which it understood the Supreme Court’s 2020 order to apply.

It therefore did not determine whether they were entitled to the same relief as the porters or accept the respondents’ position on their employment status. Given the limited nature of the relief sought and the Supreme Court’s indication that any available remedy could be pursued, the Tribunal directed the applicants to submit a fresh representation for the competent authority’s consideration.

The competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the representation.

The Tribunal expressly left delay, laches and the merits of the applicants’ claim open for consideration by the respondents; it made no order as to costs.