Dismissed

Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Jan 2022WP(C)/4841/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition by Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad seeking absorption of its workers into Group 'D' posts. The Court held that since the Union was neither a quasi-administrative office nor a recognized Trade Union under the 2006 Railway Board instructions, its employees were correctly denied appointment.

What did the court decide?

Neither application by the petitioner nor absorption of its workers was granted; the writ petition was dismissed.

Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010146372021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4841/2021

¶5

PURBANCHALIYA RAIL KARMI PARISHAD REPRESENTED BY PRESENT GENERAL SECRETARY SHRI INDRESWAR BARUAH, REGISTERED OFFICE AT MALIGAON, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781011

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RIALWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001

¶8

2:THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI PIN-110001

¶9

3:THE ADVISOR (IR) RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI PIN-110001

¶10

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) PIN-781011

¶11

5:THE CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) PIN-78101

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

Oral

¶19

05.01.2022

¶20

(Sudhanshu Dhulia , CJ)

¶21

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned standing counsel, N.F. Railway, appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner before this Court is a registered Trade Union and its members are the workers of the Northeast Frontier Railway. They have relied upon an order/instruction of the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India dated 03.05.2006, which was for the Recruitment in Group ‘D’ category on Railways of the Staff working in quasi-administrative offices/ organization connected with Railways.

¶23

The order/instruction considered the various demands which were coming from quasi-administrative offices or organizations of the Indian Railways for absorption of their part time employees in the Indian Railways and accepting those demands, it was decided as under:-

¶24

“ 3. The matter has been considered by the Board and it has now been decided that Railways with approval of General Manager may consider absorption of those staff of quasi-administrative offices/ organization who

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

were on roll as on 10.06.1997 and are still on roll subject to fulfillment of other conditions as laid down in Board’s letter ibid.”

¶27

On the strength of this order/instruction, this Court has been informed that in the year 2010, on the request of the two quasi-administrative offices or organizations of N.F. Railway, namely, N.F. Railway Employees’ Union and N.F. Railway Mazdoor Union, sixty-eight employees were appointed.

¶28

The petitioner also claims to be a Trade Union having its members in the Indian Railways who are workers and consequently gave a list of twenty-four of its workers for absorption in the Indian Railways, which was denied and consequently, they had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00123/2014. The Tribunal vide its order dated 03.07.2015 directed the Railway Authorities to consider the case of the members of the petitioner Union for absorption in Group-D service as per the instruction of the Railway Board, which have already been referred above.

¶29

This order was challenged by the Railway Authorities before this Court in WP(C) No.7709/2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2016. Thereafter, the N.F. Railway passed a speaking order on 17.02.2016 giving reference to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 03.07.2015 as well as the order of the this Court dated 05.01.2016, referred above, wherein it came to the conclusion that as per the order/ instruction, as a one-time measure, a decision was taken that the employees working in quasi-administrative offices or organizations shall be considered for appointment in Group-D posts, who were in the roll of such an organization for at least for a period of three years as on 10.06.1997. Accordingly, the Railway issued a letter advising all concerned to send the names and details of the staff working in quasi-administrative offices

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

or organizations who fulfilled the prescribed educational qualification and were within the prescribed age limit of the consideration. The Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad (PRKP), i.e. the present petitioner before this Court, it was stated, was not intimated by the Indian Railways to submit any such name for the simple reason that Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad is not a quasiadministrative office or an organization of the Indian Railways. Meanwhile, out of the names furnished by the two quasi-administrative offices or organizations, sixty-eight employees were given appointment. As regarding the status of Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad, it was stated as under:-

¶32

“ It is also relevant to mention that PRKP is not an organisation with the status of a recognized Trade Union in the Railways. The PRKP had contested in the Secret Ballot of the Railways in the year 2013 and received only 0.9% of the total vote cast which was much below the required bench mark of 30% necessary for recognition as Trade Union in the Railways. In the aforesaid Secret Ballot, PRKP had secured 577 votes against the total electorate of 61,003 (total valid votes cast : 53,994). This Railway has not granted any status of quasi administrative office/organisation to PRKP, and accordingly staff engaged by PRKP cannot be considered for absorption in Gr. D posts of Railways.”

¶33

This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00205/2016. While dismissing the said Original Application vide order dated 02.12.2019, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the petitioner, i.e. Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad, is not a quasi-administrative office or organization of the Railways, it cannot be treated at par with the other two Organizations, namely, N.F. Railway Employees’ Union and N.F. Railway Mazdoor Union, and, therefore, their employees have rightly been denied the appointments. This order is now challenged before this Court.

¶34

The admitted position is that the petitioner Union is not a quasi-administrative

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

office or organization of the Railways. It only rests its claim being a Trade Union where some of its members are working in Railways and, therefore, in that capacity, it makes a claim to be considered as a quasi-administrative office or organization of the Railways. This submission is totally misplaced.

¶37

Since the petitioner Union is not a quasi-administrative office or organization, it was not covered under the order/instruction dated 03.05.2006 and, therefore, it was not liable to get the benefit as visualized by them. Even the status of the petitioner as a Trade Union has been considered and rejected inasmuch as though it may be a registered Trade Union, but it is not a recognized Trade Union by the Indian Railways and, therefore, even in that capacity its candidature could not be considered in terms of the order/instruction dated 03.05.2006.

¶38

We find no infirmity in the speaking order dated 17.02.2016 or the order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.040/00205/2016. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, the same is dismissed.

¶39

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Golap Sarma Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Thokchom Madan Singh Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Dipika Sharma and Anr. Vs Indian Bank and 2 Ors.

Sri Amarjit Barman and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Eunus Ali Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.