DELHI HIGH COURT REGRETS DECADES-LONG LITIGATION, CRITICISES RAILWAYS’ FAILURE TO REGULARISE LOW-PAID GROUP D WORKERS:

The Delhi High Court has expressed deep regret over the prolonged litigation faced by low-paid Group-D employees working as commission-based bearers and vendors in the Railways, while dismissing two writ petitions filed by the Ministry of Railways challenging their regularisation. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla upheld the November 7, 2016 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had directed the Railways to regularise the employees, pay them arrears of minimum pay scales along with applicable allowances from November 14, 2000, and bear costs of ₹1 lakh.

The Court observed that it was a matter of serious concern that employees receiving low wages had been compelled to litigate for decades to secure their legitimate entitlements, despite repeated directions issued by the Supreme Court. The Bench noted that the employees had continued to perform their duties for several years and that their claims to regularisation were supported by a Railway Board Circular dated December 13, 1976, which contemplated the progressive absorption of commission-based vendors against regular vacancies.

The respondents had been working as commission-based bearers and vendors under the North Eastern Railway. Their claim for regularisation had also been considered in the light of several decisions of the Supreme Court, including Mahesh v. Union of India (1987) and South Eastern Railway Congress v. Chairman, Railway Board (1997). Subsequently, the Railway Board issued a circular in 2005 relaxing the educational qualification requirements applicable to such workers. Despite these developments and the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the employees remained without permanent status for several years.

The workers approached the CAT in 2013 and 2014 seeking appropriate relief. By its order dated November 7, 2016, the Tribunal directed their regularisation, payment of the minimum pay scale with allowances from November 14, 2000, and payment of ₹1 lakh towards costs. The Union of India subsequently challenged the Tribunal's decision before the Delhi High Court.

While examining the matter, the High Court took note of the Railways' claim that several of the employees had already been absorbed as Group-D workers. However, the Court found that the Railways had failed to substantiate this assertion. It further noted that contradictory statements had been placed before both the Tribunal and the High Court. The Bench described the lack of candour in the Railways' submissions as disturbing and accepted the respondents' contention that none of them had actually been regularised despite the repeated judicial directions.

The Court further relied on recent Supreme Court decisions concerning long-term temporary employment and observed that workers continuously performing essential and perennial duties cannot be kept indefinitely in an ad hoc or temporary arrangement. It held that such prolonged continuation in temporary employment could amount to an unfair labour practice and implicate the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since it was undisputed that the respondents fell within the relevant category, the Court found no justification for subjecting them to a further screening process for regularisation.

The Bench also upheld the ₹1 lakh costs imposed by the Tribunal. It observed that, if there had been any error in the quantum of costs, the Tribunal had erred on the side of leniency. The Court emphasised the responsibility of courts to protect the interests of economically weaker sections and persons receiving very low wages, noting that such protection was consistent with the socialist character of Indian democracy contemplated by the Preamble.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Railways' writ petitions and directed the Union of India to implement the Tribunal's order by regularising the concerned employees, paying the arrears of minimum pay scales and allowances from November 14, 2000, and disbursing the awarded costs within four weeks. The Court further directed that, in the event of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the Tribunal would immediately revive the pending contempt proceedings.