Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 71 of 1992.

WITH Writ Petition (Civil) No. 323 of 1993.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. J.P. Bhatacharjee, N.R. Choudhry and Somnath Mukherjee for the Petitioners in W.P.No. 71/93.

S.N. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in W.P. No. 323/93. Ms. B. Sunita Rao for V.K. Verma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M.SAHAI,J.Casual labourers of South Eastern Railway, alleged to have been appointed between 1964-69 and retrenched between 1975-78 have approached this Court for a direction to opposite parties to include their names in the live casual labourer register after due screening and give them reemployment according to their seniority. Further prayer is to restrain the opposite parties from filling vacancies from open market.

Basis of their claim is two fold, one-circulars issued by the Railway Board on 8th June and 18th June, 1981 laying guideline regarding recruitment, retrenchment and employment of the casual labourers, second-Judgments delivered by this Court in 1985 and 1987 directing the opposite parties to prepare a scheme and absorb the casual labourers in accordance with their seniority.

Issuing of circulars by the Railway Board or decisions by this Court could not and has not been disputed. Nor it is disputed that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court the opposite parties framed a scheme in 1987 for employing retrenched casual labourers. On 2.3. 1987 a letter was issued from the Railway Establishment addressed to the General Managers for employing casual labourer retrenched before 1981 if they satisfied the requirements mentioned therein which is extracted below:

"Pursuant to directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order dated 23.2.1987, in W.P. No. 332 of 1986, the Ministry desire that the cases of project casual labour who had worked as such before 1. 1.81 and who were discharged due to completion of work or for want of further work, may also be considered for the purpose of implementation of the scheme contained in the Ministry's letter of even No. dated 1.6.84 and 25.6.84 as modified in the letter dated 11.9.1986.

Your faithfully, (BHUDEV JALUA)"

The representation does not give any detail. It is not mentioned if the scheme was given due publicity or not. No explanation is given as to why the petitioners did not approach till 1990. Nor it is stated if any of the casual labourer Not it is stated if any of the casual labourer of the project were reemployed or not. It is vague and was lacking in material particulars.

Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners are entitled as a matter of law for reemployment and other if they have lost their right, if any, due to delay. Right of casual labourer employed in projects, to be reemployed in railways has been recognized both by the Railways and this Court. But unfortunately the petitioners did not take any step to enforce their claim before the Railways except sending a vague representation nor did they even care to produce any material to satisfy this Court that they were covered in the scheme framed by the Railways. It was urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that they may be permitted to produce their identify cards etc., before opposite parties who may accept or reject the same after verification. We are afraid it would be too dangerous to permit this exercise. A writ is issued by this Court in favour of a person who has some right. And not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering. Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available is law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. From the date of retrenchment if it is assumed to be correct a period of more than 15 years has expired and in case we accept the prayer of petitioner we would be depriving a host of others who in the meantime have become eligible and are entitled to claim to be employed. We would have been persuaded to take a sympathetic view but in absence of any positive material to establish that these Petitioners were in fact appointed and working as alleged by them it would not be proper exercise of discretion to direct opposite parties to verify the correctness of the statement made by the petitioners that they were employed between 1964 to 1969 and retrenched between 1975 to 1979. The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed. But there shall be no orders as to costs.