1998 (4) TMI 580 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Project Casual Labour to have their service period counted for pension and retiral benefits.
2. Definition and categorization of Casual Labour in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
3. Grant of temporary status to Project Casual Labour.
4. Discrimination claims under Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Application of the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Project Casual Labour to have their service period counted for pension and retiral benefits:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether employees initially engaged as Project Casual Labour by the Railway Administration and later absorbed in regular temporary/permanent posts are entitled to have their service period as Project Casual Labour counted for pension and other retiral benefits. The Railway Board's order dated October 14, 1980, excluded Project Casual Labour from counting their service period for pensionary benefits because there was no provision for granting temporary status to them. The Supreme Court emphasized that Project Casual Labour could not claim temporary status prior to 1.1.1981 and thus could not have their service period counted for retiral benefits.

2. Definition and categorization of Casual Labour in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual:
The Manual defined 'Casual Labour' as labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent, sporadic, or short-term. Casual Labour was categorized into three types: Open Casual Labour, Project Casual Labour, and Seasonal Labour. Open Casual Labour could attain temporary status after 120 days of continuous service, but Project Casual Labour did not have such provisions until a scheme was framed during the pendency of writ petitions before the Supreme Court.

3. Grant of temporary status to Project Casual Labour:
A scheme was framed by the Railway Ministry, making provision for granting temporary status to Project Casual Labour upon completing 360 days of continuous service. This scheme was approved by the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., with modifications. Temporary status was conferred on Project Casual Labour from specified dates, and their temporary service was counted for pension and other retiral benefits only after attaining temporary status as per the scheme.

4. Discrimination claims under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The respondents contended that denying pensionary benefits to Project Casual Labour who were regularized before 1.1.1981, while granting such benefits to those regularized after, amounted to illegal discrimination under Article 14. The Tribunal initially accepted this contention, but the Supreme Court held that the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India does not apply here as it pertains to existing benefits among similar employees and not to new benefits conferred from a specific date.

5. Application of the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India:
The Tribunal's reliance on D.S. Nakara was found erroneous. The Supreme Court clarified that the principle from D.S. Nakara applies to discrimination in existing benefits among similar employees, not to new benefits conferred from a specific date. The benefit of counting service prior to regular employment as qualifying service was a new benefit granted to Project Casual Labour under the scheme approved in Inder Pal Yadav. Therefore, the exclusion of service rendered before 1.1.1981 was not discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Railway Administration and set aside the Tribunal's judgments that had granted pensionary benefits to Project Casual Labour for service periods prior to 1.1.1981. The appeals filed by the employees were dismissed, affirming that Project Casual Labour could not count their service period for retiral benefits before attaining temporary status as per the scheme approved in Inder Pal Yadav.