In a writ petition challenging the denial of employment status as IRCTC staff, the High Court held that the petitioner was never an employee of IRCTC but of an outsourcing agency. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, treating the petitioner as unable to be staff of NTSK/JAN AHAAR under IRCTC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010007992014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1836/2014
1:NIRMAL CHAKRABORTY
S/O LT. RANJIT CHAKRABORTY, R/O HIJUBARI, RABINDRA NAGAR, P.O. HIJUBARI, P.S. and DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786192
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS
THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GHY-11
2:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER C N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA P.O. HIJUGURI DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786192
3:INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING and TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 9TH FLOOR BANK OF BARODA BUILDING 16 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-01
4:THE REGIONAL MANAGER IRCTC 4-B MANDOVI APARTMENT AMBARI GHY-01
5:RAJENDRA MAJHI EXECUTIVE CS
Page No.# 2/4
IRCTC REGIONAL OFFICE AMBARI GHY-01 6:DUP TSHERING SHERPA CATERING UNIT-IN-CHARGE IRCTC NEW TINSUKIA RAILWAY STATION P.O. HIJUGURI and DIST- TINSUKIA PIN-786192 7:R.J. PADMARAJ K.C. SEN ROAD NEAR DECENT MARAKHALI PALTAN BAZAR GHY-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRG P BHOWMIK
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 03-06-2019
Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.A. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6. Mr. A. Barkakati, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. P.K. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.
The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner was working as an authorized helper
in Tea Stall No. DS-1, at New Tinsukia Railway Station Platform, under the Railway Departmental Catering Unit. After the Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Limited (in short IRCTC) took over the Railway Board, the petitioner was allowed to run the said Tea Stall No. DS-1 under the IRCTC. However, due to convenience, the IRCTC tagged the
Page No.# 3/4
petitioner with an outsourcing agency, known as M/S Swastika Enterprise of Kolkata, on a consolidated pay, with an undertaking being given that his service would be tagged with any subsequent outsourcing agency in the event of any change in the outsourcing agency. As the Tea Stall No. DS-1 has been allotted to the respondent No. 7, the petitioner’s service has to continue and be treated as a helper in the Tea Stall.
The petitioner’s counsel submits that a formal appointment letter dated 27.03.2010 was issued, allowing him to work as F&B Attendant at the job site NTSK/JAN AHAAR. He accordingly prays that the petitioner should be treated as a staff of the NTSK/JAN AHAAR, under the IRCTC and to allow him to work in the capacity of F&B Attendant in the Tea Stall No. DS-1.
The petitioner’s counsel submits that the IRCTC has tagged his service with an outsourcing agency only for convenience sake although the petitioner has been working in the IRCTC. He accordingly submits that the petitioner should be allowed to continue running the Tea Stall No. DS-1, operated by the IRCTC.
The learned counsels for the respondents on the other hand submit that the petitioner was never an employee of the IRCTC and that he was an employee of the outsourcing agency, i.e. M/S Swastika Enterprise. As the pay of the petitioner was being paid by M/S Swastika Enterprise, the petitioner cannot claim to be an employee of the IRCTC. They also submit that there was no undertaking given by the IRCTC to the petitioner that his service would be tagged with M/S Swastika Enterprise or with any subsequent outsourcing agency that would take over Tea Stall No. DS-1. They also submit that the question of the petitioner being able to work in the Tea Stall No. DS-1 will depend upon the new service provider, i.e., if
Page No.# 4/4
the new service employs the petitioner. They accordingly pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
There is nothing in the writ petition to show that the petitioner was an employee of the IRCTC. The annexures to the writ petition however shows that the petitioner was an employee of M/S Swastika Enterprise, an outsourcing agency. As the record shows that the petitioner was never an employee of the IRCTC, it cannot be said that the petitioner is an employee of the IRCTC. Further, it is not denied by the petitioner’s counsel that the pay of the petitioner was being paid by M/S Swastika Enterprise.
In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is unable to treat the petitioner to be a staff of NTSK/JAN AHAAR under the IRCTC. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who was an employee of an outsourcing agency and not IRCTC, can be treated as staff of NTSK/JAN AHAAR under IRCTC.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue running the Tea Stall operated by IRCTC as an employee of IRCTC.
Nirmal Chakraborty
The Union of India
Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.
M/S Swastika Enterprise
Michael Zothankhuma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
