http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RATAN CHANDRA SAMMANTA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/05/1993

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 2276            1993 SCR  (3) 751  1993 SCC  Supl.  (4)  67 JT 1993 (3)   418  1993 SCALE  (2)974

ACT: Retrenchment-Re-employmment  under  a  scheme  framed  under directions of the Court-Representations vague, and delayed.

HEADNOTE: The petitioners claimed to he casual labourers of the  South Eastern  Railway  appointed between 1964-69  and  retrenched between 1975-78. They prayed (1) for inclusion of their names in the live casual register and reemployment according to their seniority, and (2)  for restraining the filling of vacancies from the  open market. They  relied  on two circulars issued by the  Railway  Board laying down guidelines for the recruitment, retrenchment and employment  of  casual labourers.  They also relied  on  two judgments of this court in 1985 and 1987 which directed  the preparation  of a scheme and absorption of casual  labourers in accordance with their scheme. A  scheme was framed in 1987 for employing casual  labourers retrenched before 1981 subject to demonstrating  suitability before 31st March, 1987. In  1990  the petitioners made their  representation  to  be considered. The questions before this court were- (a) whether the petitioners were entitled as a matter of law to reemployment and (b) if they had lost their right, if any, due to delay. 752 Dismissing the petitions, this court, HELD-1.   Right of casual labourers employed in projects  to be  reemployed in railways has been recognised both  by  the Railways and this Court.  But the petitioners only sent in a vague  representation,  and there was  absence  of  positive material  that  they were in fact appointed and  working  as claimed. (754-G) 2. A writ is issued by this court in favour of a person  who has some right and not...for  the sake of a  roving  enquiry leaving scope for manoeuver. 3. Delay itself deprives a person of big remedy available in law.   In  the absence of any fresh cause of action  of  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

legislation,  a person who has lost his remedy by  lapse  of time loses his right as well. (755-A) 4 In any event, more than 15 years have expired, and a  host of  others  who  have in the meantime  become  eligible  and entitled  to claim to be employed would he deprived  if  the petitioners’ claim were accepted. (755-B)

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 71 of 1992.                             WITH Writ Petition (Civil) No. 323 of 1993. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. J.P.  Bhatacharjee, N.R. Choudhry and Somnath Mukherjee  for the Petitioners in W.P.No. 71/93. S.N. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in W.P. No. 323/93. Ms. B. Sunita Rao for V.K. Verma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M.SAHAI,J.Casual  labourers  of  South  Eastern   Railway, alleged   to  have  been  appointed  between   1964-69   and retrenched between 1975-78 have approached this Court for  a direction to opposite parties to include their names in the 753 live  casual labourer register after due screening and  give them  reemployment  according to their  seniority.   Further prayer  is  to restrain the opposite  parties  from  filling vacancies from open market. Basis  of their claim is two fold, one-circulars  issued  by the  Railway  Board on 8th June and 18th June,  1981  laying guideline regarding recruitment, retrenchment and employment of the casual labourers, second-Judgments delivered by  this Court  in  1985 and 1987 directing the opposite  parties  to prepare  a  scheme  and  absorb  the  casual  labourers   in accordance with their seniority. Issuing  of circulars by the Railway Board or  decisions  by this  Court could not and has not been disputed.  Nor it  is disputed  that  in pursuance of the orders  passed  by  this Court  the  opposite  parties framed a scheme  in  1987  for employing  retrenched  casual  labourers.  On  2.3.  1987  a letter  was issued from the Railway Establishment  addressed to  the  General  Managers  for  employing  casual  labourer retrenched  before 1981 if they satisfied  the  requirements mentioned therein which is extracted below:               "Pursuant  to directions given by the  Hon’ble               Supreme Court in their order dated  23.2.1987,               in  W.P. No. 332 of 1986, the Ministry  desire               that  the cases of project casual  labour  who               had worked as such before 1. 1.81 and who were               discharged  due to completion of work  or  for               want  of further work, may also be  considered               for  the  purpose  of  implementation  of  the               scheme  contained in the Ministry’s letter  of               even No. dated 1.6.84 and 25.6.84 as  modified               in the letter dated 11.9.1986.               Representation  along with  documentary  proof               reaching  the  office  mentioned  above  after               31.3.1987  of those which are  incomplete  and               also  those not made with reference  to  these               instructions, will not be considered". The  petitioners  who claim to have been retrenched  due  to completion   of  Halda  project  appear  to  have   made   a representation   in   1990   to   the   authorities.     The representation runs as under               "Respected sir,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             1, on behalf of the Fetrenched Labour Congress               Union I.O. 754               Tamluk Rly.  Station.  Dist.  Midnaporoe,  beg               to   humbly  submit  that  the  above   quoted               Circulars  are not obeyed by DEN (Con).   TMZ-               DIZHA.  S.E. Rly.  KGP and they do not  follow               the  orders of they Supreme Court, High  Court               of   Calcutta   and   Central   Administrative               Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.               As a result of their indifference, the project               casual labour who are retrenched from  service               on   or   before   1.1.1981   are   in   great               difficulties and they are not getting scope of               absorption.               All  the applications deposited in the  office               of  the  DEN (CON) KGI in terms  of  Memo  No.               PD/E/A/579/A/837  in  reference to  CE/  C/GRC               dated 25.5.1987 are-to be approved.               In such circumstances, I beg to request you to               intervene  in the matter as  expeditiously  as               humble. Needless to say, if your grievances are not  sympathetically admitted  and  the retrenched labour be  not  absorbed.   We shall  have  no alternative way  except  launching  vigorous movement in the next stage.                           Your faithfully,                           (BHUDEV JALUA)" The  representation  does not give any detail.   It  is  not mentioned if the scheme was given due publicity or not.   No explanation  is  given  as to why the  petitioners  did  not approach  till 1990.  Nor it is stated if any of the  casual labourer  Not it is stated if any of the casual labourer  of the  project  were reemployed or not.  It is vague  and  was lacking in material particulars. Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners are entitled as a matter of law for reemployment and other if they have lost their right, if any, due to delay.  Right of casual labourer employed in projects, to be reemployed in railways has  been recognized  both  by  the  Railways  and  this  Court.   But unfortunately  the  petitioners  did not take  any  step  to enforce  their  claim before the Railways except  sending  a vague  representation nor did they even care to produce  any material to satisfy this Court that they were covered in the scheme framed by the Railways.  It was urged by the  learned counsel  for  petitioners  that they  may  be  permitted  to produce  their identify cards etc., before opposite  parties who may accept or reject the same after 755 verification.   We are afraid it would be too  dangerous  to permit  this  exercise.  A writ is issued by this  Court  in favour of a person who has some right.  And not for sake  of roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering.  Delay  itself deprives  a  person  of his remedy  available  is  law.   In absence  of any fresh cause of action or any  legislation  a person  who has lost his remedy by lapse of time  loses  his right  as  well.   From the date of retrenchment  if  it  is assumed  to  be correct a period of more than 15  years  has expired  and in case we accept the prayer of  petitioner  we would be depriving a host of others who in the meantime have become  eligible and are entitled to claim to  be  employed. We would have been persuaded to take a sympathetic view  but in absence of any positive material to establish that  these Petitioners were in fact appointed and working as alleged by them it would not be proper exercise of discretion to direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

opposite parties to verify the correctness of the  statement made by the petitioners that they were employed between 1964 to 1969 and retrenched between 1975 to 1979. The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed.   But there shall be no orders as to costs. U.R.                              Petitions dismissed. 756