Union of India & Anr. v. Shri Harinder Singh & Ors.

1. The respondents were outsourced Group-D cleaners working on daily wage basis, who had been employed by the petitioners through the employment exchange. Their services were discontinued by order dated 21 April 2018.

2. Alleging that the discontinuation of the respondents’ service was contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the respondents instituted OA 3301/2019 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi[1], seeking quashing of the decision to terminate their services and regularisation of their services. To press their case, the respondents “the learned Tribunal”, hereinafter contended that they have put in more than ten years of service under the petitioners. The respondents contended that, after disengaging their services, the petitioners were seeking to float a tender to induct, by outsourcing, fresh persons as cleaners (MTS) through a private contractor. They, therefore, also invoked the principle that one casual worker could not be replaced by another casual worker, to challenge their termination and engagement of others in their place.

3. It appears, from the impugned judgment, that the learned Tribunal has proceeded on a complete tangent. Para 6 of the impugned judgment reads thus:

AIR 2006 SC 1806 Constitutional scheme. We therefore, direct the Respondents to consider regularizing the services of the Appellants presently serving as canteen workers in consonance with the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and take requisite action within six months of the receipt of this Judgment. Further, as and when the subject posts fall vacant the Respondents shall be bound to fill the posts by a regular process of selection. The Appellants in the present case shall be allowed to compete in the regular recruitment and the Respondents shall grant to them appropriate age relaxation as well as grant proper weightage for their having worked in the subject Canteen.

19. There cannot be any cavil that the necessity for canteen amenities to be available where more than 260 workmen am engaged, is an essential facet of human or labour rights. Managements and employers are duty bound to provide these basic facilities.”

4. It may be noted, here, that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal does not disclose either the cause title, or the citation, of the judgement of the Supreme Court, from which the learned Tribunal has extracted the passages in para 6. A free text search on the internet reveals, however, that the extract is from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v The Chairman, Railway Board[4].

5. The decisions in Mohan Singh and M.M.R. Khan, on which learned Tribunal relies, were passed in the case of statutory canteen workers in the Railways. The dispute in those cases was whether they were entitled to be regularised as Railway employees. No similarity, much less commonality, between the controversy in issue in Mohan Singh and M.M.R. Khan and the issue in controversy before the learned Tribunal in the present case, therefore, exists.

6. After having extracted the aforesaid passages from Mohan Singh, the learned Tribunal has invoked Article 141 of the Constitution of India to state that the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country and has, therefore, directed the petitioner to consider the case of the respondents in the light of the Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi, as was directed in M.M.R. Khan and Mohan Singh.

7. There can be no cavil with the proposition that, under Article 141, the declaration of the law by the Supreme Court binds all authorities. Unfortunately, however, the judgment on which the learned Tribunal has placed reliance has nothing to do with the controversy in issue.

8. We, therefore, have no option but to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 9 December 2022 passed by the learned Tribunal and remand the OA 3301/2019 to the learned Tribunal for consideration afresh.

9. In order to expedite matters, both sides would present themselves before the learned Tribunal on 6 November 2024.

10. The learned Tribunal is requested to decide the matter as expeditiously, and if possible, within a period of six weeks from the said date.

11. The petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.