http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF RAILWAYPARCEL PORTERS UNION THROUGH I

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   577        1996 SCALE  (5)397

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      By Order  dated February  5, 1996,  this Court directed the respondents  to appoint  a high level officer to enquire whether the  petitioners have been working as Casual Porters for a  long time  as perennial  source of work and if so why they have  not been  regularised in  the light of the law of this Court  laid in  National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors &  Bearers v.  Union of India & Ors [ JT (1995) 4 SC 568 ],  Pursuant thereto, the respondents have appointed Mr. Vikram Chopras Chief Marketing Manager to enquire and submit a report  to this  Court. The  said  officer  conducted  the enquiry and  stated that  out of  503  petitioners  in  Writ Petition  Nos.568   and  711   of  1995  the  claim  of  430 petitioners were  verified. They  were on  the rolls  of the registered cooperative  societies of  the Lucknow, Moradabad and Allahabad  Divisions. Despite  their working  as porters for several  years, since  their names  do not find place in the  earlier   petitions,  they  could  not  be  regularised thinking  that  the  relief  in  those  writ  petitions  was confined  to   the  persons   whose  names   were  expressly mentioned. Consequently,  he recommended  for regularisation of that services as mentioned thus:      "(i) In  order to  comply with  the      Hon’ble  Supreme  Court’s  Judgment      that  the   Railway  should  absorb      persons supplied  by the  societies      to work  as  labourers  for  parcel      handling, to  the extent that posts      which   are    of   perennial   and      permanent nature  can be justified,      and to  absorb persons as per their      length of  working as  such  parcel      handling labour,  it is recommended      that  Lucknow,  Allahabad,  Bikaner      and  Jodhpur  divisions  should  be      asked to  fall  in  line  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    section taken at Moradabad Division      i.e.      (a) Conduct a work study at all the      stations where such parcel handling      is still  being done by such labour      and arrive  at the  number of posts      required   on   a   permanent   and      perennial basis, and      (b)  Screen   all   such   eligible      labourers as per the guide lines of      Hon’ble Supreme  Court and  as  per      the Railway  rules and  absorb them      to  the   extent  that   posts  are      justified.      (ii) The  case one  person  who  is      working at Lucknow Jn. of N.E. Rly.      may   be    referred   to   General      Manager/N.E.Rly.,   for   necessary      action.      He also  found that  he could not verify petitioners at S1. Nos.  23 to  72 whose  names have  been mentioned in the list appended  by him,  as the contract of the society under which they  claimed to  be  working  was  terminated  w.e.f. November 7,  1991. As a result, he could not find any record to  verify  them.  Shri  M.N.  Krishnamani,  learned  senior counsel undertakes  to give  all the  details  with  correct facts regarding  them to  Mr. Vikram  Chopra, C.M.M.  who is directed to  enquire into their claims and if they are found to be eligible, the benefit of the order passed by the Court in the  above order  would be  made available  to  them.  As regards petitioner No.73, it was stated that he claims to be working in  Lucknow Junction in Northern Eastern Railway and could not be verified. The General Manager, Northern Eastern Railway is directed to have the address of petitioner No.73, namely, Mohd. Nafis, son of Aleem, verified and also whether he was  working as  a  Casual  Porter  at  Lucknow  Junction Station and if so whether he is on par with those candidates whose services  were directed  to be regularised. In case he is found  to be  working then  the benefit of the directions given in the aforesaid decision would available to him also. The service  of all  those petitioners  be dealt with as per the law laid in the aforementioned judgment.      The writ  petitions are  accordingly  disposed  of  the above extent.