Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Bansi Lal vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 21 March, 2023
Dy. No.1689/2022
(Reserved on 16.3.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dy. No. 1689/2022
This the 21st day of March, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
1. Bansi Lal, Aged about 52 years, Son of Shri Brij Lal, Resident of
Village and Post - Panasa, Karchana, Prayagraj.
2. Ram Prakash, Son of Shri Bansi Lal, Resident of Village and Post -
Panasa, Karchana, Prayagraj.
3. Rang Lal, Son of Shri Lallu Ram, Resident of Village - Semari Ta
Purwa, Post - Akhoda, Karchana, Kaundhiara, Prayagraj.
4. Mohit Lal, Son of Shri Amrit Lal, Resident of Village - Kukhadi,
Post - Kaundhiyara, Prayagraj.
5. Chandan Lal, Son of Shri Pudduni Lal, Resident of Village -
Hindupur, Karchana, Prayagraj.
6. Shiv Prakash, Son of Shri Banshi Lal, Resident of Village and Post
- Panasa, Karchana, Prayagraj.
7. Shyam Babu, Son of Shri Ram Mohan, Resident of Village -
Niriya, Post - Dharwara, Karchana, Prayagraj.
8. Ram Prasad Yadav, Son of Shri Ram Bahadur, Resident of Village
- Madawa, Beerpur, Karchana, Prayagraj.
9. Lal Mani, Son of Shri Jaggannath, Resident of Gosaura, Uruwa,
Meja, Prayagraj.
10. Sopari Lal, Son of Shri Chhavi Nath, Resident of Village -
Kapuri,Bharari, Meja, Manda, Prayagraj.
11. Shivshankar, Son of Shri Amarnath, Resident of Village -
Ramgarh, Post - Deeha, Karchana, Prayagraj.
12. Babau Prasad, Son of Shri Baijnath, Resident of Village -
Ramgarh, Post - Deeha, Karchana, Prayagraj.
13. Ashwani Kumar, Son of Shri Bansi Lal, Resident of Village and
Post - Panasa, Karchana, Prayagraj.
14. Satish Kumar Yadav, Son of Shri Doodhnath, Resident of Village -
Chhatauna, Post - Sarai Mamrej, Pratappur, Prayagraj.
15. Pawan Kumar, Son of Shri Bhola Nath, Resident of Village -
Kandala Mawaiya, Post - Lacchagraha, Handia, Prayagraj.
16. Suman Kumar Kushwaha, Son of Shri Ravidal, Resident of Village
- Yasinpur, Post - Arikala, Utraun, Dhanupur, Prayagraj.
17. Narendra Pratap Singh, Son of Shri Hanshlal Singh, Resident of
Village - Alhawa, Post - Mahuli, Koraon, Prayagraj.
18. Arjun Lal, Son of Shri Late Bhagwati Prasad, Resident of Village -
Daud Nagar, Post - Bheem, Chaka, Naini, Prayagraj.
19. Sunil Kumar Kaushal, Son of Late Rajaram Kaushal, Resident of
Village - Bjheem Nagar, TSL, Naini, Prayagraj.
20. Kamlesh Kumar, Son of Purshottam Das, Resident of Devri Kala,
Neerpur, Karchana, Prayagraj.
21. Nebbu Lal, Son of Shri Ram Avtar, Resident of Puraini, Khai,
Karchana, Prayagraj.
22. Sujit Kumar, Son of Radhey Shyam, Resident of Village -
Khadiyan Ekauni, Kaundhiyara, Prayagraj.
23. Sunil Kumar, Son of Shri Ayodhya Prasad, Resident of Village -
Khadiyan Ekauni, Kaundhiyara, Prayagraj.
24. Prithviraj pal, son of Shri Ram Kishore Pal, Resident of Andawa
Sarai Inayat, Prayagraj.
25. Shivmurti, Son of Shumesar, Resident of Village- Chatwa, Sonai,
Karchana, Prayagraj.
Page 1 of 9
Dy. No.1689/2022
26. Narendra Kumar Patel, Son of Jagdish Prasad Patel, Resident of
Baidwar Kala, Koraon, Prayagraj.
27. Puranjay Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Bhagwat Prasasd Singh,
Resident of Bhabhaur, Bisari, Koraon, Meja, Prayagraj.
28. Shyam Raj, Son of Shri Shantaram, Resident of Tenduwakala,
Lutar, Meja, Prayagraj.
29. Doodhnath, Son of Shri Sukhai Ram, Resident of Lutar, Meja,
Prayagraj.
30. Ravi Pratap Singh, Son of Shri Chandrika Prasad Singh, Resident
of Sonai, Karchana, Prayagraj.
31. Durgesh Sharma, Son of Late Kalinda Narayan, Resident of
Ajhola, Manda, Uruwa, Prayagraj.
32. Shiv Kumar, Son of Shri Bhola Nath, Resident of Salampur,
Phoolpur, Prayagraj.
33. Ravi Kumar Shukla, Son of Shri Yagya Narayan Shukla, Resident
of Gurahi Kala, Khai, Karchana, Prayagraj.
34. Premchandra Patel, Son of Shri Heera Lal, Resident of Village-
Badnama, Post - Nagai Khurd, Sarai Inayat, Phoolpur, Prayagrai
35. Ashish Kumar Yadav, Son of Shri Shivmangal, Resident of
Village - Balkaranpur, Post- Diwanganj, Phoolpur, Prayagraj.
36. Chiraunji Lal Singh, Son of Shri Rajnath Singh, Resident of
Village - Vaidwar, Koraon, Prayagraj.
37. Tribhuwan Prasad, Son of Shri Ram Lotan, Resident of Village -
Adampur, Sikandara, Tharwai, Bahariya, Prayagraj.
38. Rajkumar, Son of Shri Amritlal, Resident of Village- Dighi, Post-
Ismailpur, Tharwai, Soraon, Prayagraj.
39. Roshan Lal Patel, Son of Shri Kalluram, Resident of Village-
Bhadari, Malakharhar, Soraon, Prayagraj.
40. Randhir Singh, Son of Shri Ram Manohar, Resident of Village and
Post- Sonai, Karchana, Prayagraj.
41. Hiralal, Son of Shri Ramnath, Resident of Village- Katiyahi, Post-
Meerapur, Tharwai, Bahariya, Prayagraj.
42. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Shri Nankuram, Resident of Village-
Bajwana, Post- Dewra, Kaundhiyara, Prayagraj.
43. Balkrishna, Son of Shri Lalta Prasad, Resident of Village -Pipraon,
Koraon, Prayagraj.
44. Shivbabu Patel, Son of Shri Parmanand Patel, Resident of Village-
Fattepur, Karchana, Prayagraj.
45. Surya Prasad, Son of Shri Mathura Prasad, Village- Khajuri, Post-
Naraon, Karchana, Prayagraj.
46. Ramji Shukla, Son of Shri Rohini Prasad Shukla, Resident of
Village - Bhichkuri, Post- Kukhadi, Kaundhiyara, Prayagraj.
47. Sunil Kumar, Son of Shri Lalchandra, Resident of Village -
Basnehara, Post- Basana, Phoolpur, Pratappur, Prayagraj.
48. Prem Shankar, Son of Shri Pannalal, Resident of Karuwadeeh,
Pratappur, Phoolpur, Prayagraj.
49. Pawan Kumar Pal, Son of Shri Santlal Pal, Resident of Village and
Post- Chilla, Lalapur, Jasra, Prayagraj.
50. Surya Prakash, Son of Shri Mangaru Ram, Resident of Village -
Bardaha, Karchana, Prayagraj.
51. Lal Bahadur, Son of Shri Ram Adhar, Resident of Village -
Newada, Post- Rokadi, Karchana, Prayagraj.
52. Lalji, Son of Shri Rajaram, Resident of Village- Basnehara, Post -
basana, Pratapur, Phoolpur, Prayagraj.
53. Gulab Chandra, Son of Shri Doodhnath, Resident of Village -
Heeramanpur, Sarai Mamrej, Pratappur, Prayagraj.
54. Vijaraj Singh, Son of Shri Ram Saran Singh, Resident of Village-
Keshavpur, Post- Tilkhawar, Karchana, Prayagraj.
55. Akhilesh Kumar, Son of Shri Ram Tirath, Resident of Village -
Jaitwar Deeh, Post- Tharwai, Soraon, Prayagraj.
Page 2 of 9
Dy. No.1689/2022
56. Vinod Pandey, Son of Shri Guru Prasad Pandey, Resident of
Village - Kaithi, Post- Sonai, Karchana, Prayagraj.
57. Anita Chaudhary, Wife of Ramdev, Resident of Chauphatka,
Subedarganj, Khuldabad, Prayagraj.
58. Sanjay Singh, Son of Shri Chhedilal, Resident of Village -
Kaudihar, Manauri, Puramufti, Prayagraj.
59. Deena Nath, Son of Bhola Nath, Resident of Village - Chaksubans,
Post -Dhonba, gandia, Dhanepura, Prayagraj.
60. Kundan Singh, Son of Shri Abhayraj Singh, resident of Village -
Besnahara, Pratappur, Phoolpur, Prayagraj.
61. Devi Prasad, son of Shri Babdeen, Resident of Village- Rampur,
Post- Majhigawa, Manda, Prayagraj.
62. Ranjay Shankar Yadav, Son of Shri Sitaram, Resident of Village-
Untimanda, Post- Babhani Hatar, Manda, Prayagraj.
63. Umakant Upadhyay, Son of Shri Shripati Upadhyay, Resident of
Village - Dhaon Koraon, Post- Koshfara, Koraon, Prayagraj.
64. Jagdish Prasad, Son of Shri Rajai, Resident of Shri Village and
Post - Gohari, Tharwai, Soraon, Prayagraj.
65. Ram Dular Pal, son of Shri Sukaru Pal, Resident of Village-
Gulalpur, Post Hettapatti, Jhunsi, Bahadurpur, Prayagraj.
66. Lalji Chaturvedi, Son of Shri Lokmani Chaturvedi, Resident of
Village- Khiwali Kala, Post- Khirikala, Koraon, Prayagraj.
67. Dilip Kumar, Son of Shri Gurcharan, Resident of Village- Sarai
Hariram, Post- Bahadurgarh, Sarai Mamrej, Prayagraj.
68. Ravindra Kumar, Son of Shri Ram Dular, Resident of Village -
Bahmalpur, Post- Phaphamau, Tharwai, Soraon, Prayagraj.
69. Sunil Kumar, Son of Shri Maharani Deen, Resident of Village-
Didhi, Post- Ismailpur, Tharwai, Saraon, Prayagraj.
70. Chandra Prash Pal, Son of Shri Ram Achal Pal, Resident of
Village - Andawa, Sarai Inayat, Bahadurpur, Prayagraj.
71. Suresh Chandra Tiwari, Son of Shri Amar Nath Tiwari, Resident
of Village - Raghupur, Saidabad, Prayagraj.
72. Kusum Kumar, Son of Shri Gomti Prasad, Resident of Village -
Lohari, Post - Beerpur, Karchanal, Prayagraj.
73. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Shri Shri Nath Gupta, Resident of
Village - Bahmalpur, Post- Phaphamau, Tharwai, Soraon,
Prayagraj.
74. Ram Babu Pal, Son of Shri Rajmani, Resident of Village-
Habibpur, Post- Jhunsi, Bahadurpur, Prayagraj.
75. Ram Janam Singh, Son of Shri Sangam Lal, Resident of Village
Bendo, Post- Deeha, Karchana, Prayagraj.
76. Dignarayan, Son of Shri Sarju Prasad, Resident of Village-
Senduwar, Post- Levari, Ghoorpur, Jasra, Prayagraj.
77. Mahendra Kumar Kushwaha, Son of Shri Ram Bahadur, Resident
of Village- Taraon, Koraon, Prayagraj.
78. Bhola Nath, Son of Shri Rudra Prasad, Resident of Village-
Chanaini, Karchana, Prayagraj.
79. Baburam, Son of Shri Premchandra, Resident of Panwariya, Post-
Tilakhwar, Karchana, Prayagraj.
Applicants
By Advocate:- Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Chief General
Manager, Telecom, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
2. General Manager (Telecom), District- Prayagraj.
3. Assistant General Manager (Planning), Office of General
Manager (Telecom), District- Prayagraj.
Respondents
Page 3 of 9
Dy. No.1689/2022
By Advocate: Sri D.S. Shukla
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J) The present O.A has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for direction for payment of salary of the applicants for the period from January 2020 to April 2020.
2. The facts in brief are that the applicants are employed in Prantiya Rakshak Dal, U.P. (in short PRD) and they were paid Rs. 375/- per day as payment and no other allowances. Applicants were discharging their duties as Security Guard at various telephone exchange in Prayagraj under the respondent No. 2. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 had requested to the Zila Yuwa Kalyan and Pradeshik Vikas Dal Adhikari for nominating a Supervisor and in pursuance of the same vide letter dated 15.3.2019, Zila Yuwa Kalyan and Pradeshik Vikas Dal Adhikari, Prayagraj nominated applicant No. 1 to work as Supervisor in BSNL with request to the General Manager, BSNL, to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to Sri Banshi Lal, Supervisor. Applicants have also annexed the bill of Guard for the months of January 2020 to April 2020 issued by Zila Yuwa Kalyan and Pradeshik Vikas Dal Adhikari, Prayagraj to General Manager, BSNL, Prayagraj.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents filed preliminary objection stating therein that applicants themselves admitted that they are discharging their duties as Security Guard at various Telephone exchange and respondents are taking work of security guard through the registered agency which provides Security Guards and respondents have not engaged any person for the work of security guard and applicants are not the employee of BSNL nor they have been engaged by the competent authority of the BSNL. Applicants have worked in the department through contractor hence applicants are contract employee of the department and not regular employee. Hence, the O.A. filed by the applicants are not maintainable before this Tribunal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
5. It is admitted fact that no appointment letter have been issued by the BSNL for engaging the applicants. The applicants Page 4 of 9 Dy. No.1689/2022 were engaged by Zila Yuwa Kalyan and Pradeshik Vikas Dal Adhikari, Prayagraj to work as Security Guard in the department. It is clear that applicants were not regular employee of the department and they were working through contractor on contract basis. Now the question which has to be decided is whether CAT has jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by the contract labour or not.
6. Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 980/ 2014 connected with other O.As (Mamta Vs. Govt. of NCT decided on 5th September, 2014) by passing a detailed order, observed as under:-
"3. In view of the rival contentions raised, the most crucial question that arises for consideration is what is the nature of the post against which the Dhobis get their appointment for discharging the duties of washing clothes of the cadets? From the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment issued to such Dhobis it is crystal clear that the appointments cannot be held to be one against any civil post. On the other hand it clearly indicates that the appointment is purely private payable out of Regimental Fund. Initially these Dhobis were being paid at a particular rate per cadet on the basis of actual number of cadets a Dhobi is required to serve, but later on a monthly salary, no doubt, has been fixed for being paid to such Dhobis. The terms of appointment, no doubt, vest certain control over such Dhobis on the Commandant of the Academy but nontheless such control cannot impress the post of Dhobis with the character of a Civil post. It is also borne out from the record that each cadet is granted a monthly Dhobi allowance and the said allowance is put into a fund called 'Regimental Fund' under the management of Commanding Officer of the institution. At this stage it would be appropriate to notice some provisions of the Defence Services Regulation which would give an idea as to the characteristic of the Regimental Fund. Under Para 801 of the Regulation Public Funds have been defined as such:-
801 (a) Public Funds - Include all funds which are financed entirely from public money, the unexpended balances of which are refundable to Government in the event of not being devoted to the objects for which granted, and also
(i) unissued pay and allowances;
(ii) Office allowance fund; and
(iii) the estates of deceased men and deserters."
4. Para 801 (b) defines 'Regimental Fund" to mean comprising all funds, other than public funds maintained by a Unit.
Page 5 of 9 Dy. No.1689/20225. Rule 820 provides for administration of such Regimental Fund and 820 (a) clearly indicates that all funds other than public funds as defined in Para 801 maintained by a unit, which are financed either wholly or partly from public money. Regulation further provides that the Commanding Officer acts as a trustee in relation to the 'Regimental Fund' and is responsible that the funds are properly applied with special reference to the object of the fund and for the benefit of the personnel or unit as a whole.
6. In view of the characters of the Regimental Fund, as discussed above, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said fund cannot be held to be public fund by any stretch of imagination and the Dhobis paid out of such fund cannot be held to be holders of civil post within the Ministry of Defence so as to confer jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal to issue direction relating to their service conditions. It is of course true that the Commanding Officer exercises some control over such Dhobis but on that score alone it cannot be concluded that the posts are civil posts and that payments to the holders of such post is made from out of the Consolidated Fund of India or of any public fund under the control of Ministry of Defence.
7. In the aforesaid premises the contention of Mr. Mahajan, learned senior counsel that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the question of service conditions of such Dhobis has to be sustained and consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the OA. This appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Also in the present case, the respondent No.2 assigned the job of house-keeping to the contractors and the payment for contractual work was made to the contractors. No direct payment was made by the said respondent to the applicants herein. In the absence of the contract being declared camouflage, no direct relationship of employer and employee can be found to be established between the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the applicants herein. The applicants cannot even be treated the employees of the respondents No. 1 and 2 far less the holders of civil posts in connection with their affairs. As far as the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Subir Mukharji and Others (ibid) is concerned, in the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court could find that the respondents happened to be members of M/s Bandel Handling Porters Cooperative Society Ltd. and there was no denial by the appellants that the work performed by them was of perennial nature. Further in view of the fact that the appellants were working on contract basis continuously or uninterruptedly since 1988, Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the directions issued by Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 13.03.1997 as quite fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case, while refusing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, their Lordships no where ruled that the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter, where the application is filed by the employees of the contractors.
Page 6 of 9 Dy. No.1689/20225. In Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. M/s Alnoori Tobacco Products & another ( 2004 (6) SCALE 232), it has been held that the judicial precedents need to be referred to and followed with reference to the facts of the case before the Court and also the facts in which the judicial proceedings are laid down. The relevant excerpt of the judgment read as under:-
12. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed:
"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge."
13. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said:
"There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."
14. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
15. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus:
"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of Page 7 of 9 Dy. No.1689/2022 one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
As far as the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Awadhesh Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors is concerned, the ratio deci dendi in the same is that in the case of contractual worker either the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal have the jurisdiction and when the alternate mechanism is provided in the law, the petitioner could not have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the Hon'ble High Court refused to entertain the Writ Petition, it was no where held that the employees of the contractor can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal but it was viewed that in the matter of contractual employee either the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction. In fact, where the department directly engaged somebody on contract basis and not through the contractor, the grievance of contract employee is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and in such cases where the work is assigned to the contractor and it is the employee of the contractor who has a grievance, the grievance can be looked into by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Central Govt. in terms of the CLRA. Besides, we are also convinced with the plea raised by the respondents that when the applicants rightly approached the Industrial Tribunal for abolition of the contract and regularization of their services for part of the relief i.e. for continuance of their contractual service, they cannot approach the Tribunal. Once the Industrial Tribunal adjudicates the issue of abolition of contract and regularization of the applicants, they could also adjudicate the issue of their entitlement to continue in service. Thus, we find that the Original Application is not amenable to our jurisdiction and is also barred by principle of res sub-judice.
7. In the aforesaid case, it has clearly been observed by the CAT, Principal Bench that where department directly engaged somebody on contract basis and not through contractor, then and then only, the grievance of the contract employee is amenable to the jurisdiction of Tribunal. In the present matter, work is assigned to some other body who is not related to BSNL and applicants were engaged by that body, if there is any dispute regarding payment of their remuneration, same can be redressed or looked into by the Labour Court. CAT has no jurisdiction to entertain the present application filed by the contract labour. Hence, this court is also of the view that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this O.A. Page 8 of 9 Dy. No.1689/2022
8. Accordingly, Dy. No. 1689/2022 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction at this stage itself. Applicants are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so desires.
9. No order as to costs.
(Justice Om Prakash-VII) Member (J) HLS/-
Page 9 of 9