The petitioner Railways, is aggrieved with the award passed at Ext.P9. The contentions before this Court are confined to those relating to one V.K. Dasan, P.K. Droukumari, K.K. Pushpavathy, K.C. Karthyayani and P.R Vasantha. Before going into the individual grievance of the above petitioners, the background of the above proceedings has to be looked into. 2. The Railways had been engaging casual labourers in its projects and otherwise; who were so employed and terminated at will. A number of Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, bringing to the notice of that Court, the manner in which the Railways, one of the major employers of the nation, in the public sector, had been dealing with the marginalised section of society. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the manner in which the rule of hire and fare continued in Government employment even after about four decades of independence in Inder Pal Yadav and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1985) 2 SCC 648]. A scheme was put forth by the Railways in mitigation of the grievances projected by the casual labourers.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that, though not entirely satisfactory, the scheme would be an improvement on the then situation, in realisation of the ideals enshrined in Article 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India. Considering the fact that the Railways had taken a step towards realisation of such ideals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted approval to the said scheme which culminated in a “Live Register” maintained by the Railways, in which the casual labourers employed at various points of time for a considerable period were included.
4. Naturally, there were disputes raised as to the inclusion of persons, which were agitated by individuals and that resulted in a further petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which concluded the decision in Dakshin Railway Employees Union, Trivandrum Division v. General Manager, Southern Railway and Others [(1987) 1 SCC 677], therein it was directed that all persons, who are entitled to claim the benefits of the scheme, which was approved in the earlier cited decision and persons who had been retrenched before January 1981 should submit their claims to the Administration before 31.03.1987. The workmen referred to in the earlier part of this judgment had by virtue of the aforesaid scheme been included in the “Live Register”.
5. The system followed by the Railways as is discernible from the arguments put forward by both the Counsel is that, with the maintenance of the “Live Register”; as and when employment opportunities arose in projects or otherwise, based on the seniority; if those retrenched with longest survive were first employed. The Railways had been giving re-employment to casual labourers in the regular service.
6. The workmen referred to above were all retrenched some time in the period between 1984 and 1987. The Union of Workmen raised a dispute in the year 1991 as is evidenced at Ext.P1. After a prolonged litigation, the appropriate Government was asked to refer the dispute, which culminated in Ext.P9 award. The dispute itself was referred in the year 2005 and the reference was of the justifiability of the demands made by the Union before the conciliation officer.
7. The Labour Court, Ernakulam permitted both the Unions as also the Management to adduce evidence and passed Ext.P9 award. The present adjudication is confined to the five workmen aforementioned. With respect to all the said workmen, the Labour Court found that they were in the “Live Register” referred to above. The dispute arose since the five workmen were not re-employed despite their status in the “Live Register”. The Union took a specific stand that the juniors to the five workmen, were employed and they were kept away from employment purposefully and deliberately.
8. The Labour Court found that the workmen having been engaged for more than 240 days were entitled to retrenchment compensation. That however, is not relevant for the present case. What assumes significance is the finding of the Labour Court that, all the workmen referred to above were included in the “Live Register”. With respect to V.K.Dasan, it was found that the denial of employment was by reason of he being medically unfit. The Labour Court relying on the precedents and found that, if at all he was medically unfit for re-employment in the projects, he should have been adjusted in some other employment wherein he could have continued work with the establishment as a low medical category.
9. In any event, that was not the ground on which the Labour Court passed an award in his favour. The Labour Court found that he was entitled to compensation, since, his retrenchment was not proper and in any event found that the workmen had by the time of the award become over aged. The Labour Court hence ordered compensation of Rs.25,000/-. This Court does not find any infirmity in such order. The compensation so granted shall be paid to the workman with future interest @ 6% from the date of the Labour Court award.
10. With respect to the other workmen noticed above, the Labour Court clearly found that all the said workmen were also included in the “Live Register”. The Management did not adduce any evidence nor was any witness examined from their part. The claim of the Union that juniors were engaged, remained uncontroverted, since the same was not even challenged in cross-examination. It is also admitted that even on the date of the award, all these workmen were within employable age. There being no contra evidence adduced by the Management and the workmen being within the age limit, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement. This was again, a natural consequence of their names figuring in the “Live Register”.
11. Admittedly, there was a stay in the above award and they were not granted such reinstatement. There is also no dispute that, as of now all the employees have attained the age of superannuation. The decision in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar [(2002)8 SCC 400] puts in the proper prospective jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Looking at the entire circumstances, this Court is not convinced that any interference can be made to the award passed by the Labour Court. In the context of the workmen having attained the age of superannuation, there could be no order of reinstatement at this stage. In a similar matter an interim order of this Court in W.P(C) No. 20016 of 2006 has been placed before this Court to indicate that the last drawn wages of the workmen similarly situated was Rs.5 per day. The learned Counsel for the respondent however contends that their labour cards as produced before the Labour Court would indicate that the workmen herein were paid Rs.11.58 per day.
13. In any event, this Court would not at this point of time make a roving enquiry as to what was the last wages drawn. Definitely, the last wages drawn as on 1978 cannot be taken, for ordering compensation, subsequent to 2006, the year in which the Labour Court passed the award. In such circumstance, the workmen above referred ie., P.K. Droukumari, K.K. Pushpavathy, K.C. Karthyayani and P.R Vasantha shall approach the authority with proof of age and from the date of the Labour Court award till attainment of superannuation ie., till attainment of 6o years, the workmen shall be paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each per year.
With the above modification of the award, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.