Calcutta High Court Dismisses Railways’ Plea, Upholds Tribunal’s Directive for Regularizing Parcel Porters – “Judicial Propriety Demands Respect for Findings Based on Similar Facts”

Court’s Decision:

The Calcutta High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing the regularization of parcel porters. The court ruled that the Tribunal’s findings, based on similar facts in prior cases, adhered to judicial propriety. It dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India, stating that the Tribunal’s decision involved no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice.

Facts:

1. Role and Nature of Work:
   • The respondents were initially employed as licensed porters at Malda Town Railway Station, carrying passengers’ luggage in exchange for direct payments from passengers.
   • Over time, the Railways began utilizing their services for departmental work, such as loading and unloading parcels and other railway-related duties. Subsequently, the respondents were issued identity cards designating them as parcel porters instead of renewing their brass porter licenses.
2. Employment Status and Compensation:
   • The respondents recorded their attendance in registers maintained by railway authorities and were paid wages for their work. From 2009 to 2011, they received monthly wages through the commercial division. Later, a lump-sum subsidy system was introduced for such work.
3. Attempts for Regularization:
   • Respondents submitted multiple representations to railway authorities in 2014 and 2015, requesting the regularization of their services and the payment of dues from 2011 onwards. These requests went unaddressed, prompting the respondents to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
4. Tribunal’s Order:
   • The Tribunal determined that the respondents were similarly situated to the applicants in OA Nos. 158 of 1997, 1392 of 1997, and 1400 of 1997, who were granted benefits of regularization as parcel porters. It directed the Railways to extend the same benefits to the respondents after verifying their records.

Issues:

1. Key Issue: Did the Tribunal err in finding the respondents similarly situated to the applicants in previous cases and directing their regularization as parcel porters?
2. Were the respondents entitled to the same benefits granted in earlier cases involving parcel porters?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Distinction in Roles:
   • The petitioners contended that the respondents were originally licensed porters carrying passengers’ luggage, unlike the applicants in prior cases, who worked exclusively as parcel porters. They argued this difference invalidated the comparison made by the Tribunal.
2. Procedural Irregularities:
   • The Railways claimed that:
     • The identity cards issued to the respondents were unauthorized, as they were issued by a probationary officer.
     • The attendance register signatures were allegedly forged.
     • Respondents did not comply with a policy requiring porters to surrender their licenses before becoming parcel porters, proving their continued status as licensed porters.
3. Inherited Licenses:
   • Petitioners highlighted instances where licenses were inherited, citing the example of one respondent, Chhotu Kumar Roy, who allegedly received his license from his father.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Role as Parcel Porters:
   • The respondents submitted that, like the applicants in earlier cases, they worked as parcel porters performing regular railway duties under the direct supervision of railway officials. They relied on evidence, including:
     • Identity cards issued by railway officials.
     • Attendance registers signed by commercial supervisors.
     • Records of payments received for their services.
2. Consistency in Rulings:
   • The respondents argued that objections raised by the Railways in this case were similar to those dismissed in previous cases. The Tribunal, in earlier cases, had ruled in favor of regularization after rejecting similar arguments.
3. Failure of Railways to Prove Claims:
   • The Railways failed to provide evidence of respondents paying license fees or holding renewed licenses while working as parcel porters. This omission supported the claim that the respondents were parcel porters and not licensed porters.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Legal Framework:
   • The principle of equal treatment under the law mandates that similarly situated individuals must receive similar benefits. In prior cases, parcel porters performing perennial duties under the supervision of railway officials were regularized.
2. Judicial Consistency:
   • The court emphasized judicial propriety, stating that findings based on analogous facts in prior judgments must be respected to ensure fairness and consistency in rulings.
3. Perennial Nature of Work:
   • The Tribunal and the High Court noted that the work performed by the respondents, such as handling parcels, was of a perennial nature, qualifying them for regularization.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Prior Tribunal Cases:
   • The applicants in OA Nos. 158 of 1997, 1392 of 1997, and 1400 of 1997 were regularized as parcel porters based on similar circumstances. This decision was affirmed by a coordinate bench of the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court.
2. Supreme Court Rulings:
   • The Apex Court, in prior cases, upheld the regularization of parcel porters performing perennial duties, establishing a binding precedent.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Tribunal’s Findings:
   • The Tribunal carefully reviewed the evidence, including:
     • Identity cards issued by the station manager.
     • Attendance registers maintained by railway authorities.
     • Payment records showing monthly wages paid to the respondents.
   • The Tribunal concluded that the respondents were parcel porters performing regular railway duties, similar to applicants in prior cases.
2. Failure to Produce Evidence:
   • The Railways failed to substantiate their claims that respondents were licensed porters or had paid license fees during their tenure as parcel porters.
3. Judicial Propriety:
   • The High Court emphasized that findings based on similar facts in prior cases must be respected to maintain judicial consistency. It found no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the Tribunal’s order.

Conclusion:

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound and equitable. It directed the Railways to comply with the Tribunal’s order, extending the benefits of regularization to the respondents after verifying their records.

Implications:

1. Consistency in Judicial Approach:
   • The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial consistency, ensuring fair treatment for similarly situated individuals across cases.
2. Accountability for Public Authorities:
   • The ruling highlights the obligation of public authorities to address grievances promptly and act in accordance with established precedents.
3. Worker Rights:
   • The decision underscores the need to recognize and regularize the contributions of workers performing perennial duties under government supervision.

Also Read – Bombay High Court: Strict Compliance with Village Panchayat Act Mandatory, Quashes Upa-Sarpanch Resignation Over Forgery Allegations and Procedural Non-Compliance, Emphasizing Democratic Safeguards