Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that parcel porters are workers, as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA).
A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and GA Sanap upheld the earlier decision of the Single Judge Bench while dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Nagpur Division of South East Central Railway (SECR).
In the first round of litigation, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) in 2009 directed the SECR to amalgamate these parcel porters in Group D category with regular pay scale and other benefits.
However, the award of CGIT was challenged by the SECR in the High Court. On October 14, 2009, the Single Judge confirmed that the parcel porters were workers and referred the matter back to the CGIT for a fresh decision on merits on other issues.
The CGIT was barred from dealing with the issue of ‘workmen’ as the High Court, on the basis of the records available before it, held that these parcel porters were ‘workers’ under section 2(s) of the 1947 IDA.
On the issue of the worker, the SECR presented the LPA before the division bench of the High Court. Upholding the single judge’s decision on the workman’s point of view, the division bench, in its order, held that there was sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the parcel porters were indeed workmen, and that it was not possible to accept this argument. . The Railways said that the matter could not have been referred to the CGIT for fresh consideration without touching the issue of the worker only on merits.
The High Court also observed that it cannot forget the fact that after the remand, the matter was decided by the CGIT in July 2010 and no effort was made by the Railway Management, the proceedings before the CGIT after the remand were stayed. installation was requested.
Opposing the submissions of SECR counsel SV Purohit and Nitin Lambet that these porters were not workers, counsel for parcel porters organization NW Almelkar argued that even after the CGIT ruling in favor of parcel porters, the appellant sought interim relief. took no action for Proceedings before CGIT stayed.
As a consequence, the Tribunal went ahead with the decision and passed the award in favor of the organization. According to Almelkar, since the proceedings have now been decided after the CGIT remand, the challenge raised in the present LPA had become infructuous, and sought dismissal of the appeal on this ground.
He submitted that the Single Judge had justified in recording a finding that the parcel porters engaged by the Railways were workmen. However, the Bench decided the workman’s issue on its own merits and quashed the LPA.
A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and GA Sanap upheld the earlier decision of the Single Judge Bench while dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Nagpur Division of South East Central Railway (SECR).
In the first round of litigation, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) in 2009 directed the SECR to amalgamate these parcel porters in Group D category with regular pay scale and other benefits.
However, the award of CGIT was challenged by the SECR in the High Court. On October 14, 2009, the Single Judge confirmed that the parcel porters were workers and referred the matter back to the CGIT for a fresh decision on merits on other issues.
The CGIT was barred from dealing with the issue of ‘workmen’ as the High Court, on the basis of the records available before it, held that these parcel porters were ‘workers’ under section 2(s) of the 1947 IDA.
On the issue of the worker, the SECR presented the LPA before the division bench of the High Court. Upholding the single judge’s decision on the workman’s point of view, the division bench, in its order, held that there was sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the parcel porters were indeed workmen, and that it was not possible to accept this argument. . The Railways said that the matter could not have been referred to the CGIT for fresh consideration without touching the issue of the worker only on merits.
The High Court also observed that it cannot forget the fact that after the remand, the matter was decided by the CGIT in July 2010 and no effort was made by the Railway Management, the proceedings before the CGIT after the remand were stayed. installation was requested.
Opposing the submissions of SECR counsel SV Purohit and Nitin Lambet that these porters were not workers, counsel for parcel porters organization NW Almelkar argued that even after the CGIT ruling in favor of parcel porters, the appellant sought interim relief. took no action for Proceedings before CGIT stayed.
As a consequence, the Tribunal went ahead with the decision and passed the award in favor of the organization. According to Almelkar, since the proceedings have now been decided after the CGIT remand, the challenge raised in the present LPA had become infructuous, and sought dismissal of the appeal on this ground.
He submitted that the Single Judge had justified in recording a finding that the parcel porters engaged by the Railways were workmen. However, the Bench decided the workman’s issue on its own merits and quashed the LPA.
.