Seniority Of Casual Labourers To Be Reckoned From Regular Appointment, Not From Date Of Screening/Temporary Status: Gauhati High Court
A single judge bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, while deciding writ petitions held that the seniority of casual labourers who are later absorbed in permanent cadre must be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not from the date of screening or temporary status.Background FactsThe workmen were initially employed by the Northeast Frontier...
A single judge bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, while deciding writ petitions held that the seniority of casual labourers who are later absorbed in permanent cadre must be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not from the date of screening or temporary status.
Background Facts
The workmen were initially employed by the Northeast Frontier (N.F.) Railway on a casual basis in the Construction Department. Over time, they attained temporary status as casual workers. They underwent a screening process in the mid-1980s (1984-1985) to qualify for permanent absorption into the N.F. Railway's regular workforce. Although they were screened in the 1980s, their permanent absorption into regular service did not occur until 15 May 1996.
The Rail Mazdoor Union, representing the workmen, raised a dispute regarding the fixation of seniority. The Union demanded that the seniority of the workmen be counted from the date they were screened (1984-1985) rather than from the date of their permanent absorption (1996). The Central Government referred this dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) for adjudication.
The CGIT ruled in favor of the workmen and directed that their seniority should be fixed from the date of screening (1984-1985). The tribunal's decision was challenged by the Union of India through three separate writ petitions filed before the Gauhati High Court.
It was contended by the Union of India that, according to the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Volume II), seniority should only be counted from the date of permanent absorption (1996), not from the date of screening or the period of casual service before permanent absorption. The UOI also questioned the maintainability of the dispute raised by the Rail Mazdoor Union, arguing that it was not a recognized union under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
On the other hand, it was argued by the Rail Mazdoor Union that the workmen's seniority should be reckoned from the date of their screening for permanent absorption, rather than from the date of their formal absorption into the permanent workforce. They contended that the workmen were already performing permanent duties from the date of their screening, and hence, seniority should be fixed from that point onward.
It was further argued that recognition of the Rail Mazdoor Union was not a necessary requirement for raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Act allows unions to take up disputes in a representative capacity.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Volume II) clearly stated that seniority is to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not from the date of screening or temporary status. It was noted by the court that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) had erred in ignoring these provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It was observed that the tribunal's decision to fix seniority from the date of screening had no legal basis and was inconsistent with the rules governing the reckoning of seniority for railway employees.
The Supreme Court's judgment in M. Ramakotaiah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 405, was relied upon by the court, which laid down that the seniority of casual labourers who are later absorbed in a regular or permanent cadre must be reckoned from the date of regular appointment, and not from the date of screening or temporary status.
The court did not delve into the maintainability of the references raised by the Rail Mazdoor Union on the grounds of its recognition status, as it found that the tribunal's decision was flawed on merit itself. Therefore, the question of whether the union was recognized or not was not considered crucial for the case's outcome. It was held by the court that the tribunal's awards were not in accordance with the law and the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petitions filed by the Union of India were allowed by the Gauhati High Court. The court set aside the Central Government Industrial Tribunal's awards, ruling that the workmen's seniority should be reckoned from the date of their formal absorption (May 15, 1996), not from the date of screening (1984-1985).
Case No. : WP(C)/8/2015
Counsel for the Petitioner : D K Dey, M Purakayastha
Counsel for the Respondent : M Borah, C S Hazarika, M Sharma, Md. M U Ahmed