ALTAMAS KABIR, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGING an order dated September 8, 1997, issued by the Railway authorities introducing a subsidy system to replace the system of parcel handling by co-operative societies, the private respondents in W. P. C. T. No. 124 of 2001, moved the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of original Application No. 1158 of 1997, with a prayer for a direction upon the Railway authorities to regularise them as permanent railway servants. Two similar applications, being O. A. No. 1392 of 1997 and 1400 of 1997, were filed by several others. The facts of the three applications and the reliefs prayed for therein being similar, the said applications were taken up for hearing analogously and were disposed of by the learned Tribunal by its common judgment and order dated August 24, 2000. ( 2 ) WHILE the said applications were pending for hearing, the Railway authorities issued another order dated April 5, 1999, allowing parcel handling work at Bhagalpur railway Station to the licensed porters of the station. The said respondents also challenged the subsequent decision of the railways by filing a Miscellaneous Application being No. 195 of 1999 and obtained a stay of the said order on july 30, 1999. ( 3 ) IN the meantime, the licensed porters of Bhagalpur Railway Station, Ranjit Mahato and 92 others, filed an application, being M. A. No. 509 of 1999, for being added as parties in o. A. No. 1158 of 1997 on the ground that any decision passed in favour of the original applicants could adversely affect their interest. Considering the facts involved, the said application was allowed and the said applicants were added as parties in the main proceedings. Thereafter, the added parties filed another miscellaneous application, being M. A. No. 510 of 1999, in the original application and prayed for vacating the interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal on July 30, 1999. The same was, however, rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated March 31, 2000. Although, the added parties challenged the stay order of the learned Tribunal, this Court declined to interfere and directed the learned Tribunal to hear out the original application on merit. The same was, however, rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated March 31, 2000. Although, the added parties challenged the stay order of the learned Tribunal, this Court declined to interfere and directed the learned Tribunal to hear out the original application on merit. ( 4 ) THE case made out by the applicant in o. A. No. 1158 of 1997 is that they had been initially engaged by contractors for handling, loading and unloading of parcels and other goods at Bhagalpur Railway Station since 1973. Subsequently, upon the contract being terminated, they formed labour co-operatives and the same work was being done by them and payment was being made by the railways through the said co-operatives. According to the applicants, they claimed that the work performed by them is of a perennial nature and that they have been performing such work for even as long as 20 to 22 years. It was also their claim that many such contract labourers who had been handling the work of loading and unloading parcels and goods in various railway stations all over the country, had prayed for regularisation of their services as railway employees and had filed cases in support of their claim before "different High Courts, tribunals and also before the Hon'ble Supreme court. According to the applicants, in most of these cases the High Courts and the Tribunals had held that these persons were doing parcel handling work which is of perennial nature for the railways and were being paid by the railways either through contractors, co-operatives or directly and they should, therefore, be regularised as railway employees. In the case of National Federation of Railway porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of india and Ors. , reported in AIR 1995 SC 1617 : 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 152 : 1995-II-LLJ-712, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated may 9, 1999, had directed that railway parcel porters working as contract labour should be absorbed permanently in vacancies that might arise on a perennial basis in the stations in which they were working. ( 5 ) IN such backdrop, the applicants were aggrieved by the decision taken by the railway authorities on September 8, 1997, to introduce a subsidy system and prayed for quashing of the same and also for a direction upon the railway authorities to regularise them as permanent railway employees. ( 5 ) IN such backdrop, the applicants were aggrieved by the decision taken by the railway authorities on September 8, 1997, to introduce a subsidy system and prayed for quashing of the same and also for a direction upon the railway authorities to regularise them as permanent railway employees. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the materials brought on record and the case made out by the respective parties the learned Tribunal was of the view that the railway respondents had taken a somewhat inconsistent stand by emphasizing that the applicants are licensed porters and not parcel porters. According to the railway authorities the licensed porters are required to do the job of carrying passengers' luggage and payment is made for the job by the passenger concerned and not by the railways. However, as a policy decision it had been decided that licensed porters who were willing to do parcel handling work could do so after surrendering their licences. It was also stated that out of the 47 applicants 38 were still licensed porters. After noting the case made out by the added respondents that they are licensed porters and pay licence fee to the railways as per the terms and conditions of their licence they were entitled to handle both passengers' luggage as also parcels and luggage in the custody of the railways and after recording the stand of the railways that even the original applicants were licensed porters, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the original applicants were all, in fact, parcel porters and not passengers' porters. The learned Tribunal ultimately held that the applicants and the private respondents who were subsequently added in the proceedings were all licensed porters, but the applicants were doing work as parcel porters engaged either through contractors or co-operatives or directly solely for the purpose of loading, unloading and handling of parcels and trans-shipment in the custody of the railways while the private respondents were not doing such work and they were primarily engaged in the work of carrying passengers' luggage and were being directly paid by the passengers. ( 7 ) ON such finding the learned Tribunal held that it was, therefore, clear that the private respondents had been working as licensed porters and had been doing the job of carrying passengers' luggage and were being paid by the passengers and not by the railways like the applicants. ( 7 ) ON such finding the learned Tribunal held that it was, therefore, clear that the private respondents had been working as licensed porters and had been doing the job of carrying passengers' luggage and were being paid by the passengers and not by the railways like the applicants. They could not, therefore, be said to be similarly circumstanced as the applicants who had been performing the work of parcel handling as mentioned in the order. On such finding the learned Tribunal also held that the applicants were entitled to get the benefits of the several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court as referred to on behalf of the applicants. The three original applications were accordingly disposed of with the following directions -" (A) The impugned order dated September 8, 1997 (Annexure-H) is not interfered with by us. However, the railway respondents shall fix a mutually agreed rate of remuneration to be paid to the applicants or other licensed porters who are willing to do parcel handling job as per clause (7) of the terms and conditions of the licence. (B) The impugned orders dated April 5/6, 1999 are hereby set aside being issued by incompetent authorities and without appropriate authority. (C) The railways respondents are directed to scrutinise the records of all the applicants, who have been doing parcel handling work at the concerned railway stations, by forming a committee of senior officers and giving opportunities to all concerned and prepare a list according to their seniority taking into account service rendered by them under the contractors/co-operatives/ railways directly. (D) The respondent authorities having control over the concerned railway stations shall thereafter absorb the petitioners as regular railway parcel porters of the those number to be so absorbed being limited to the quantum of work which may become available to them on a perennial basis after creation of appropriate number of posts and after following prescribed procedures. (E) On such absorption, such of the applicants, who would be so absorbed on permanent basis, shall be entitled to get from the date of absorption the minimum scale of pay or wages and other service benefits which the regularly appointed railway parcel porters are already getting. (F) The respondents shall absorb on permanent basis only those applicants who have not completed the superannuation age of 60 years. (F) The respondents shall absorb on permanent basis only those applicants who have not completed the superannuation age of 60 years. (G) The respondents shall not be required to absorb those eligible applicants who are not found medically fit for such employment. (H) The absorption of the applicants or such of the applicants on a regular and permanent basis shall not debar the railway authorities from utilising their services for any other manual work of the railways depending upon its needs. (I) In the matter of absorption, the persons who have worked for longer periods shall be preferred to those who have put in shorter period. In other words, they are to be absorbed as per their seniority to be fixed as per our direction given in (c) above. (J) Such of the applicants who could not be absorbed on permanent basis for want of posts commensurate with the quantum of work on a perennial basis, would continue to work on casual basis as per the order dated September 8, 1997 and they shall be provided with such work by the concerned authorities as per need in preference to the private respondents. But it should be ensured that they are paid minimum wages under the relevant law for their work. (K) The aforesaid directions be complied with within six months from the date of communication of this order". ( 8 ) THE learned Tribunal directed that the said order would govern all the three original applications which were being heard together. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid decision of the learned Tribunal, the Union of India and the railway authorities had filed the first three writ applications. The other two writ applications have been filed on behalf of the added respondents who too are aggrieved by the directions contained in the said order. ( 10 ) APPEARING for the railway authorities, mr. R. N. Das submitted that the learned tribunal had completely misunderstood the case of his clients which had led to the finding that the applicants in O. A. No. 1158 of 1997 had been exclusively handling the task of loading and unloading goods and parcels under the railways to the exclusion of the licensed porters. Mr. R. N. Das submitted that the learned tribunal had completely misunderstood the case of his clients which had led to the finding that the applicants in O. A. No. 1158 of 1997 had been exclusively handling the task of loading and unloading goods and parcels under the railways to the exclusion of the licensed porters. Mr. Das submitted that as far as railways were concerned, all porters, whether they were handling passengers' luggage or goods and parcels, were licensed porters and according to the policy of the railway authorities those who were engaged in handling passengers' luggage could also handle goods and parcels if they surrendered their licences. ( 11 ) MR. Das submitted that the learned tribunal had wrongly created a separate class of porters for the purpose of handling of railway parcels and goods alone. According to mr. Das, in any event, the mere handling of parcels or goods other than those of passengers' did not confer any special status on such porters since they had not been directly engaged by the railways as had been wrongly held by the learned Tribunal. ( 12 ) MR. Das then urged that apart from the fact that there were no substantial posts of parcel porters either at Bhagalpur Railway station or any other railway station all over the country, even the nature of work of loading and unloading parcels is purely intermittent and is not perennial in nature. In other words, the volume of packages to be loaded and unloaded is also uncertain depending upon several factors such as, availability of packages offered by the customers for carrying by parcel vans. It was not, therefore, possible to deploy porters only for the purpose of loading and unloading parcels and goods at any fixed hour or on a permanent basis as a result of which the railway administration had not been able to sanction any permanent post for parcel handling work. ( 13 ) MR. Das submitted that since the railway stations and other railway areas are restricted areas certain formalities have to be maintained for permitting the parcel handling labourers to enter the platform, such as, recording the names of such labourers and the work done by them, for the purpose of making payment to them. Mr. ( 13 ) MR. Das submitted that since the railway stations and other railway areas are restricted areas certain formalities have to be maintained for permitting the parcel handling labourers to enter the platform, such as, recording the names of such labourers and the work done by them, for the purpose of making payment to them. Mr. Das urged that such recording was purely for administrative reasons and did not and/or could not confer any right on the parcel handling labourers for being absorbed on a permanent basis. Mr. Das urged that it was merely a question of convenience which made the railway authorities maintain records of persons entering the railway areas for the purpose of loading and unloading parcels and goods consigned and entrusted to the railways for delivery from one station to another. Mr. Das submitted that it would amount to discrimination if licensed porters who were performing work of loading and unloading of railway consignments were chosen for the purpose of regularisation of their services as against the licensed porters, who were engaged in handling passengers' luggage. Mr. Das submitted that the directions given by the learned Tribunal were based on an erroneous premise and/or appreciation of the facts and could not, therefore, be implemented. ( 14 ) MR. Das lastly referred to the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the authority contained therein empowering the appropriate Government to prohibit employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, but did not pursue his argument to establish whether the original applicants were, in fact, contract labourers who were required to take recourse to the provisions of the said Act. In this regard Mr. Das only referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Steel Authority of India limited and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront workers and Ors. , reported in AIR 2001 SC 3527 : 2001 (7) SCC 1 : 2001-II-LLJ-1087 and municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K. V. Shramik Sangh and Ors. , reported in AIR 2002 SC 1815 : 2002 (4) SCC 609 : 2002-II-LLJ-544, but did not dilate further on ( 15 ) MR. Asit Banerjee, appearing for the writ petitioners in the two other writ petitions, while supporting the stand of Mr. , reported in AIR 2002 SC 1815 : 2002 (4) SCC 609 : 2002-II-LLJ-544, but did not dilate further on ( 15 ) MR. Asit Banerjee, appearing for the writ petitioners in the two other writ petitions, while supporting the stand of Mr. Das submitted that instead of discriminating i between similarly placed labourers, the learned tribunal ought to have directed absorption of all licensed porters, irrespective of whether they are handling passengers' luggage or railway consignments on the analogy that all were licensed porters under the terms and conditions of the licences granted to them, licensed porters upon surrendering their licenses could also perform the work of handing parcels and other Railway i consignments. ( 16 ) MR. Banerjee submitted that, in fact, the learned Tribunal had erroneously created a difference between two sets of licensed porters, both engaged in handling of luggage and parcels. ( 17 ) MR. Banerjee also relied on the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the railway authorities in O. A. No. 1158 of 1997 wherein it had been stated that out of the 47 applicants 36 were still licensed porters at bhagalpur Station and in view of the unreasonably high rates being charged by the co-operative society the railway administration was compelled to switch over to the subsidy system by which the Station Master, bhagalpur, started engaging labour for handling parcels. Mr. Banerjee also referred to the list of 48 persons who had been engaged for doing parcel work at the Bhagalpur Parcel office from which it would be evident that they had paid their monthly licence fees up to the period mentioned against their names. ( 18 ) APPEARING for the original applicants in O. A. No. 1158 of 1997, Mr. S. N. Ganguly submitted that it would be evident from the materials on record that his clients stood on a different footing from those licensed porters who were handling passengers' luggage. According to Mr. Ganguly, his clients had been engaged from the very beginning to do the work of handling parcels and railway consignments firstly under a contract system involving contract labour, and, thereafter, as labour supplied by a co-operative society. Mr. According to Mr. Ganguly, his clients had been engaged from the very beginning to do the work of handling parcels and railway consignments firstly under a contract system involving contract labour, and, thereafter, as labour supplied by a co-operative society. Mr. Ganguly submitted that after the abolition of the contract system as also the system of employing labour supplied by co-operative societies, the railways introduced a System by which his clients were engaged directly by the railway authorities for handling the work of loading and unloading parcels and railway consignments and they were paid directly by the railway authorities. In support of his submissions Mr. Ganguly referred to Annexure 'i' of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the original applicants which is a direction given by the senior Divisional Commercial Manager/asm on September 14, 1998, informing the various authorities of the instructions of the Railway board to ensure that no licensed porters were deployed for handling parcel consignments either directly by the railways or through agencies. Mr. Ganguly urged that the said direction clearly indicated the decision of the railway authorities not to engage any licensed porters for parcel handling work which was confined to a particular class of porters such as his clients. ( 19 ) MR. Ganguly also referred to a memo issued by the Station Manager, Eastern railway, Bhagalpur, on August 21, 1999, wherein it was categorically indicated that in bhagalpur in the parcel office the work of loading and unloading railway parcels were confined only to 48 persons, namely, the applicants in O. A. No. 1158 of 1997. ( 20 ) MR. Ganguly contended that while it was true that licences had been issued to licensed porters for entering into the platform and/or station area, the work of handling of passengers' luggage and parcel and other goods consigned to the railways by customers were always treated as different and work of loading and unloading parcels were confined to a certain set of porters who were initially supplied by the contractors and thereafter by co-operative societies and then finally employed directly by the railways. ( 21 ) IN support of his submissions Mr. Ganguly firstly referred to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and bearers v. Union of India and Ors. ( 21 ) IN support of his submissions Mr. Ganguly firstly referred to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and bearers v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), wherein on a similar set of facts the Hon'ble supreme Court in a writ application under article 32 of the Constitution directed absorption on a regular basis of railway parcel porters who had been working as contract labour. Mr. Ganguly also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Subir Mukherji and Ors. , reported in AIR 1998 SC 2247 : 1998 (5) SCC 301 : 1998-II-LLJ-238, wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court chose not to interfere with the directions issued by the Central administrative Tribunal giving directions to the Eastern Railway to absorb the labourers of the contractor bearing in mind the quantum of work available on perennial basis and subject to their fitness. Mr. Ganguly submitted that the learned Tribunal had very clearly come to the conclusion that the applicants in O. A. No. 1158 of 1997 were entitled to be treated on a footing which was different from licensed porters engaged in the handling of passengers' luggage. ( 22 ) MR. Ganguly submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal did not call for any interference and all the five writ applications were liable to be dismissed. ( 23 ) WHAT clearly emerges from the materials before us is that there are two sets of porters operating in railway stations and platform and in other railway areas such as the goods area or the parcel yards and sheds. While one set of porters is engaged in carrying passengers' luggage, the other set is engaged in handling goods and parcels entrusted to the railways. It also emerges that the railways have treated them on a different footing while emphasising at one point that those porters engaged in carrying passengers' luggage could also opt for handling railway parcels and goods if they surrendered their licences. ( 24 ) ONE big point of difference between the two sets of porters is the fact that while one set is being paid for their services by the passengers directly, the other set is being paid for their labour by the authorities of the railway. ( 24 ) ONE big point of difference between the two sets of porters is the fact that while one set is being paid for their services by the passengers directly, the other set is being paid for their labour by the authorities of the railway. That itself sets the two apart and makes any comparison difficult. ( 25 ) ON behalf of the railways an unconvincing attempt was made to convince us that there was really no difference between porters engaged in carrying passengers' luggage and porters engaged in handling parcels and that they were all licensed porters. The learned Tribunal has dealt with that aspect of the matter and has come to a conclusion that though both sets of porters are licensed porters, they perform functions and duties which are basically different. There can be no question that railway parcel porters have engaged the attention of the Courts for some time as against porters engaged in carrying passengers' luggage. ( 26 ) IN the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of National federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and bearers v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), the status of parcel porters engaged by the railways is clearly recognised and directions were given to absorb some of them permanently on the basis of the quantum of work available to them of a perennial nature. ( 27 ) MR. Banerjee s clients who are the writ petitioners in W. P. C. T. Nos. 264-265 of 2001, fall in the first category of porters engaged in handling passengers' luggage and cannot, in our view, have the same claim as the railway parcel porters. ( 28 ) IN our view, the order and the directions given by the learned Tribunal do not call for any interference. All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs interim orders, if any, are also vacated. ( 29 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the applicant expeditiously. JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. : i agree.