South Eastern Railway Station Porters Union, B.S.C. Through Secretary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Chairman, Rly. Board, G.O.i. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside..........right enforceable against the respondents, relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this court.4. however, since it is an admitted fact that the members of the petitioner were engaged in the said work for a petty long time, if they had made representation before the competent authority of the railway regarding their grievance, the same deserves consideration and disposal at their end. the petitioner has stated that its representation has not been considered and no order has been communicated to the petitioner till date.5. mr. mahesh tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the petitioner may file fresh representation before the competent authority and if any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed.6. in view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation regarding its claim alongwith a copy of this order before the chairman, railway board, government of india, new delhi (respondent no. 1.7. if such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the said respondent by a reasoned.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to utilize the licensed porters of Bokaro Steel City Railway Station for loading and unloading of parcels at the said station. It has been stated that about 58 porters were granted license for loading and unloading of parcels in the year 1991 by the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Adra by his letter dated 12.7.1991 and since then the said porters were engaged for loading and unloading of parcels and they were being paid wages by the Station Master, Bokaro Railway Station for the said work. The President of South Eastern Railway Station Porters Union had filed a case being M.W. Claim No. 133/05 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad in 2005 complaining payment of less than the prescribed minimum wages. The said case was decided in favour of the porters directing the Railway to pay them the minimum wages according to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. It has been stated that since thereafter the respondents stopped to take work from the said porters without assigning any reason. It has been contended that the members of the petitioner have been victimized only because of the institution of the said case claiming due wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The said case was decided in their favour. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents in not taking work from the members of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. Their engagement is fit to be restored. The members of the petitioner filed representation before the Chairman, Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi, but the said representation has also not been considered till date.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, contesting the writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that the members of the petitioner were the licensed porters. They were granted license for carrying the passengers luggage under the prescribed terms and conditions of the license. The porters get the charges from the passengers on the basis of the weight of luggage. The Station Master, however, had engaged some of the porters at Bokaro Railway Station for performing parcel handling work. The payment for the said work of porters was made on the weight basis fixed by the Railway from time to time. However, the licensed porters refused to accept the prescribed remuneration for handling of the parcels in the year 2005. Thereafter, four Hamals, who are the employees of the Railway, have been posted for performing the parcel handling work i.e. loading and unloading of the parcels at the Bokaro Steel City Railway Station. The Railway Board by its letter dated 8.4.2002 has issued a circular deciding not to utilize the licensed porters for the parcel handling work. In view of the said decision of the Board, the said porters cannot be engaged for the parcel handling work. The porters being the licensed red shirt coolies meant for carrying the luggage of the passengers, have got no right to force the Railway Administration to take their services for parcel handling work.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, as also the materials on record. It is an admitted position that the members of the petitioner are the licensed porters and they are performing the job of carrying the luggage of the passengers on the prescribed remuneration. Though the petitioner has made out a case that its members were engaged by the Railway for performing the parcel handling work at Bokaro Railway Station no term or condition of the said engagement has been brought before this Court on the basis of which the respondents can be directed to take the services of the members of the petitioner for parcel handling work. Since the Railway has taken the stand that the Board has decided not to take the said work from the members of the petitioner, in absence of any document, showing their right enforceable against the respondents, relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court.

4. However, since it is an admitted fact that the members of the petitioner were engaged in the said work for a petty long time, if they had made representation before the competent authority of the Railway regarding their grievance, the same deserves consideration and disposal at their end. The petitioner has stated that its representation has not been considered and no order has been communicated to the petitioner till date.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the petitioner may file fresh representation before the competent authority and if any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed.

6. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation regarding its claim alongwith a copy of this order before the Chairman, Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi (respondent No. 1.

7. If such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the said respondent by a reasoned order.