Delhi High Court Slams Railways For Making Low-Paid Commission Vendors Fight For Decades, Upholds Regularisation
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the Indian Railways for making low-paid commission vendors and bearers litigate for decades to secure their employment rights, observing that courts must protect the interests of weaker sections and persons drawing “paltry wages”.A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said it was a matter of...
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the Indian Railways for making low-paid commission vendors and bearers litigate for decades to secure their employment rights, observing that courts must protect the interests of weaker sections and persons drawing “paltry wages”.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said it was a matter of “deep regret” that Group-D level workers, despite repeated directions issued by the Supreme Court, were compelled to litigate for decades for their legitimate entitlements.
“It is time that Courts protected the interests of the weaker sections of the society and persons drawing paltry wages, so as to ensure that the socialist structure of our democracy – which is a preambular goal – remains intact,” the Court said.
The Bench was dealing with two petitions filed by the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways challenging a 2016 judgment passed by the the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), directing regularisation of the respondents who were commission based vendors and bearers working with the North Eastern Railway.
Dismissing the pleas, the Court traced the dispute back to a Railway Board's circular passed on December 13, 1976, which contemplated registering commission vendors and bearers according to length of service and progressively absorbing them against regular vacancies.
To be noted, the Supreme Court had issued directions in 1987 and subsequently in 1997 concerning regularisation and payment of benefits to similarly placed commission vendors and bearers.
In 1997, the Supreme Court had directed that until such workers were absorbed against available vacancies, they should be paid the minimum of the revised pay scale along with applicable allowances.
The Railway Board subsequently issued another circular in 2005 directing that commission vendors pt bearers be regularised, with complete relaxation of educational qualifications, subject to the conditions specified therein. The respondent workers nevertheless had to approach the CAT again in 2013-14.
The Tribunal had allowed their applications and directed the Railways to regularise them within 90 days. It also directed payment of minimum pay scale and allowances from November 14, 2000, and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the Railways.
Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Court said that the respondents fell within the category of commission vendors and bearers who were entitled to regularisation under the 1976 Railway Board circular.
The Bench held that there was no question of the Railways subsequently resorting to a screening process to eliminate any of the respondents from regularisation.
Further, the Court found it “very disturbing” that the Railways failed to substantiate its assertion that several of the workers had already been absorbed as Group-D employees. It said that the Railways is expected to display candour before judicial fora.
“We, therefore, are inclined to believe the respondents in their assertions that none of the respondents in either of these writ petitions have been regularised, despite repeated orders passed by judicial fora up to the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, we find no case, whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal,” the Bench said.
Regarding imposition of costs by Tribunal, the Court said that it would have been inclined to enhance the costs upon the Railways but, somewhat hesitatingly, refrained from doing so.
The Court accordingly dismissed the petitions and directed compliance with the Tribunal's order, including payment of costs, within four weeks.
“We have been told that contempt proceedings had been initiated before the Tribunal, which have been kept on hold pending disposal of these writ petitions. In the event that there is failure to comply with the aforesaid directions, we direct the Tribunal to revive the contempt proceedings and take them to their logical conclusion,” the Bench ordered.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MITHAI LAL AND ORS & other connected matter