1974 (1) TMI 110 - SC - Central Excise

Court Invalidates Seniority Decisions, Directs Restoration of Rights for Railway Employees

The Court held that the differential treatment of category (i) employees was justified, but found no rational basis for discriminating between categories ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of Railway Board's decisions dated November 2, 1957, and January 13, 1961.2. Discrimination against employees of category (iii) under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.3. Preliminary objections regarding delay and non-joinder of necessary parties.4. Validity of seniority fixation and absorption of ex-Grain Shop staff.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Railway Board's Decisions:The respondents challenged the Railway Board's decisions dated November 2, 1957, and January 13, 1961, which modified the earlier decision of October 16, 1952, regarding the seniority of ex-Grain Shop staff. The respondents argued that these decisions discriminated against category (iii) employees by fixing their seniority from the date of their absorption in permanent departments rather than from the beginning of their service in the Grain Shop Department. The Court held that the differential treatment of category (i) employees was justified as they were initially appointed in permanent departments and transferred to the Grain Shop Department. However, the Court found no rational basis for discriminating between categories (ii) and (iii), who were similarly situated after recruitment to the Grain Shop Department.2. Discrimination Against Category (iii) Employees:The respondents contended that the Railway Board's decisions violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by discriminating against category (iii) employees. The Court agreed, stating that once employees from different sources are absorbed into a single integrated class with identical service conditions, they cannot be discriminated against based on their original source of recruitment. The Court emphasized that the guarantee of equality applies to persons in like situations under like circumstances and that the impugned decisions created an unjustifiable distinction among similarly situated employees.3. Preliminary Objections Regarding Delay and Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties:The appellants raised two preliminary objections: the writ petition was filed 8 to 11 years after the impugned decisions, and the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who would be affected by the decision. The Court dismissed these objections, noting that the plea of delay was not argued before the High Court and could not be resurrected at this stage. Regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties, the Court held that the affected employees were, at most, proper parties and not necessary parties. The relief sought was against the Railway, which was duly represented, and the absence of individual employees did not render the writ petition defective.4. Validity of Seniority Fixation and Absorption of Ex-Grain Shop Staff:The Court examined the historical context and policy decisions regarding the absorption and seniority of ex-Grain Shop staff. It noted that the Railway Board's decision of October 16, 1952, treated all personnel recruited to the Grain Shop Department as members of the same class or unit of service. The subsequent decisions of 1957 and 1961, which altered this treatment, were found to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The Court emphasized that the fundamental right to equality means treating persons in like situations alike and that the impugned decisions unjustifiably discriminated against category (iii) employees.Separate Judgments:In Civil Appeal 1938 of 1972, the respondent Manickyam's seniority was revised and downgraded based on the impugned decisions. The Court held that the directions of November 2, 1957, and January 13, 1961, were unconstitutional to the extent they pertained to categories (ii) and (iii). Consequently, the order revising Manickyam's seniority was invalid. The Court directed the Railway to restore and refix Manickyam's seniority as per the October 16, 1952, decision and consider him for promotion accordingly.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the High Court's decision was affirmed except for the differential treatment of category (i) employees, which was upheld. The impugned decisions of 1957 and 1961 were declared unconstitutional and invalid for categories (ii) and (iii), and the Railway was directed to restore the seniority of affected employees as per the 1952 decision.