Page No.# 1/8 vs The Workmen Represented By The General ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7771 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The Workmen Represented By The General ... on 14 October, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                                Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010018322015




                                                                          2025:GAU-AS:13693

                             THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/4455/2015

              THE UNION OF INDIA
              REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI



              VERSUS

              THE WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECY.,
              RAIL MAZDOOR UNION, N.F. ZONE, PANDU, GUWAHATI



                    For the Petitioner(s)     : Mr. B. K. Das, Advocate

                    For the Respondent(s)    : None appears.


                       Date of Hearing       : 14.10.2025
                       Date of Judgment      : 14.10.2025



                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                             JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.

Page No.# 2/8

2. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondents in spite of service being meted out.

3. The Petitioner herein has assailed the Award dated 31.12.2014 passed in Reference Case No.07/2007 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati (for short "the learned Labour Court") whereby the learned Labour Court passed an award thereby directing the Petitioner to implement the policy of restructuring and to grant the benefit thereof to the Artisan workmen category under Dy. C.E. Bridge Line, Maligaon to 6 numbers of workmen namely Shri H. K. Dey, Shri Hari Prasad Thakur, Shri Barindra Chakrabarty, Shri Raju Telegu, Shri Aydya Prasad and Shri Surindra Sahani w.e.f. 01.11.2003 observing all instructions/guidelines for implementing the policy issued vide the Railway Board's letters dated 09.10.2003, 24.08.2004 and 17.06.2004 within three months from the date of receipt of the Award after publication of the same being made by the Ministry.

4. The impugned Award has been assailed by the Petitioner on the ground that the learned Labour Court had passed the Award without taking into consideration that the said Restructuring Policy implemented vide letter dated 09.10.2003 could not be made applicable to the facts of the instant case.

5. For the purpose of appreciating the dispute in hand, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

Page No.# 3/8

6. The Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) had issued a letter dated 09.10.2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "Restructuring Policy") whereby the Ministry of Railways with a view to strengthening and rationalizing the staff pattern of the Railways decided that Group-C and Group-D categories of staff as indicated in the Annexure to the said letter dated 09.10.2003 should be restructured in accordance with the revised percentages indicated therein.

7. It appears from the enclosure to the said revised circular more particularly Annexure-E that in respect to Artisans Staff, the revision was to be worked out in the following manner:

CATEGORY                 GRADE                  EXISTING    REVISED
                                           %AGE             %AGE
                         (Rs.)

8. It is further relevant to take note of that pursuant to the letter dated 09.10.2003, the Railway Board issued an order dated 06.01.2004 whereby the letter dated 09.10.2003 was modified thereby the percentage distribution of posts in the categories of Shunting Drivers and Diesel Assistants/Electrical Assistant was to be revised from the existing 20:80 to the ratio of 30:70 and the percentage distribution of posts for the category Page No.# 4/8

of Technical Supervisors for the cadres where 'Mistries' posts are not existing should be revised from the existing 17:28:25:30 to the ratio of 21:29:24:26. Further to that, it was also mentioned in the order dated 06.01.2004 that the restructuring of the cadres will be with the reference to the sanctioned cadre strength as on 01.11.2003 and the staff who will be placed in higher grade as a result of the implementation of the orders would draw pay in the higher grade w.e.f. 01.11.2003.

9. The record reveals that one Shri Hari Kamal Dey along with 16 others who were employed in the Artisan cadre in the establishment of the Deputy Chief Engineer (Bridge Line) Maligaon, North East Frontier Railway, under the control of the Engineering Department headed by the Principal Chief Engineer and being employed in separate trades all classified as Artisan cadre both for general purpose of personal management and restructuring cadre had submitted a representation being aggrieved at being left out from the benefits of restructuring of the cadre. The said aspect was placed before the Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central), Guwahati for conciliation. However, the conciliation failed which resulted in a reference being made by the Ministry of Labour vide order No.L-41011/3/2007-IR(B-I) dated 28.06.2007. Reference thereupon was modified vide amendment on the basis of a Ministry's Order No. No.L-41011/3/2007-IR(B-I) dated 03.09.2009 which reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of N.F. Railway in not giving

the restructuring benefit to Shri Hari Kamal Dey and 16 others w.e.f. 01.11.03 vide Order No.PC/III/2003/CRC/6 dt. 09.10.03 is legal and Page No.# 5/8

justified?"

10. Pursuant to the said reference being placed for adjudication before the learned Labour Court, written statements were filed by both the parties and evidence led. The learned Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings as well as the evidence decided the reference in favour of the workmen holding inter alia that the order No. No.PC/III/2003/CRC/6 dated 09.10.2003 and the clarification issued thereon was illegal and not justified and the workmen more particularly only 6 in number, names of whom have already been referred to hereinabove were directed to be given the benefits of the Restructuring Policy w.e.f. 01.11.2003. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

11. This Court vide an order dated 05.08.2015 issued notice and stayed the award dated 31.12.2014 passed in Reference Case No.07/2007 by the learned Labour Court. The interim order thereupon has been continued till date.

12. The records reveal that in spite of various opportunities being given, the Respondents have not appeared and resultantly vide an order dated 05.06.2025, this Court had duly observed that one final opportunity was granted to the Respondents to appear in the matter failing which the instant writ proceedings would be taken up ex-parte. In spite of that, the Respondents have not chosen to appear when the matter is taken up today and under such circumstances, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal.

Page No.# 6/8

13. Mr. B. K. Das, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned Award suffers from perversity taking into account that the learned Labour Court completely misconstrued the Restructuring Policy dated 09.10.2003 as well as the evidence on record and as such, the impugned Award is required to be interfered with.

14. This Court has duly taken note of the Restructuring Policy dated 09.10.2003 whereby the Ministry of Railways had decided that the Group-C and Group-D categories of staffs as indicated in the Annexures to the letter dated 09.10.2003 should be restructured in accordance with the revised percentage indicated therein. The record further reveals that pursuant to the said letter dated 09.10.2003, certain modifications were carried out vide another letter dated 06.01.2004 whereby the restructuring of the cadres were to be made with reference to the sanctioned cadre strength as on 01.11.2003.

15. This Court in the previous segments of the instant judgment had duly noted about Annexure E to the letter dated 09.10.2003 wherein the restructuring pattern in respect to the Artisan staff have been mentioned. This Court further duly takes note of the Exhibit-C which categorically stipulates the post sanctioned in the Artisan cadre along with other posts. Exhibit-D is a document of vital importance which mentions about the change in the cadre strength pursuant to the revision as per the Restructuring Policy on the basis of the letter dated 09.10.2003. This Court have also taken note of the evidence of the Management Witness No.1 wherein in uncategorical terms, it has been mentioned that in view of the Page No.# 7/8

sanctioned cadre strength as on 01.11.2003 and the letter dated 09.10.2003 being worked out, it was found that no post in the higher cadre was created due to restructuring as per the revised percentage in the higher grades of Platter, Fitter Structure, Fitter Mechanic, Motor Trolley Driver and Truck Driver. It was also categorically mentioned that in view of no higher post being created, the question of granting promotion to the workmen and other staff cannot be considered.

16. This Court has duly taken note of the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2014 and it appears from a perusal of the impugned Award that the learned Labour Court completely misread the evidence as well as the Restructuring Policy as mentioned in the letter dated 09.10.2003 as well as the order dated 06.01.2004. The learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that when there was no post created in the higher cadre, the question of the workmen being promoted to the post in the higher cadre could not have been directed. The emphasis placed by the learned Labour Court on a person namely Shri Deepak Das being promoted against the Restructuring Policy on the basis of Exhibit-7 was not properly taken into account inasmuch as on the basis of a corrigendum issued subsequently, it was mentioned that Shri Deepak Das was promoted against a normal vacancy.

17. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that as there was no higher post created, the question of the workmen being given the benefit of the Restructuring Policy by giving them promotion to the higher post did not arise and under such circumstances, the impugned Award having failed to take into consideration the evidence on record as well Page No.# 8/8

as have misread the letter dated 09.10.2003 as well as the order dated 06.01.2004 suffers from perversity for which this is a fit case for interference.

18. Accordingly, this Court sets aside and quashes the impugned Award dated 31.12.2014 passed in Reference Case No.07/2007 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

19. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

20. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the TCR to the learned Court below.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant