Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 136 (ORI)

Union of India v. Atanu Kumar Jena

2013-05-03

B.K.MISRA, M.M.DAS

body2013
ORDER 3.05.2013An Original Application, being O.A. No.156 (C) of 2012 has been filed by the opp.Parties before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, which is pending disposal. In the said O.A., the opp.Parties as applicants have sought for direction from the learned Tribunal to the east Coast Railway authorities to act as per the Board’s direction under Annexure-1 to the said O.A. as in all other Railways of Union of India and for any other relief. As an interim relief, stay, of order dated 28.2.2012 under Annexure-15 to the O.A. was sought for. 2.From Annexure-15 to the O.A., it appears that the railway authority took a decision to operate all the Passenger Reservation System (PRS) counter with two shifts up to 22 hours by maintaining in the counters seven hours duty instead of six hours with effect from 1.3.2012. 3.After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal on 1.3.2012 passed an interim order in connection with the interim relief sought for by the opp.Parties - applicants with the following direction : “...... In the circumstances, while refraining from staying the letter under Annexure-15, we direct the Respondent No.1, as an interim measure, to take action/issue suitable instruction for proper planning and deployment for meeting the public need in such a manner among the existing employees so that a particular set of employees is not put to any disadvantage.” Thereafter, an application, being Misc.Case No.238 of 2012, for modification was filed by the opp.Parties-applicants before the learned Tribunal with a prayer to clarify/modify the said order dated 1.3.2012 to such extent so that the applicants-opp.Parties will not be put to disadvantage. The learned Tribunal taking up the said Misc. Case passed an order on 9.5.2012, inter alia, observing that though the respondents object to the modification of the order dated 1.3.2012 in course of hearing of the Misc.Application, it was not disputed that decision is awaited from the Railway Board in regard to the working hours of the Reservation Clerks and Supervisors working in East Coast Railway. Case passed an order on 9.5.2012, inter alia, observing that though the respondents object to the modification of the order dated 1.3.2012 in course of hearing of the Misc.Application, it was not disputed that decision is awaited from the Railway Board in regard to the working hours of the Reservation Clerks and Supervisors working in East Coast Railway. Thus observing, the learned Tribunal held that though they do not find any ambiguity in the order dated 1.3.2012, to avoid confusion, it is made clear that till a decision from the Railway Board is received, the respondents are hereby directed to follow the timings as indicated in Annexure-13 to the O.A. 4.It appears that Annexure-13 to the O.A. is a letter of the Chief Traffic Manager, East Coast Railways addressed to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, which reads as follows :- “East Coast Railway. Office of the Chief Commercial Manager 3rd Floor, ECoR Sadan, Samantvihar, Bhubaneswar-17. No.CCM/44/PRS/Working Hours/Pt.I/558Dt.5.9.11. To The Sr. Divnl. Commercial Manager, E.Co. Railway, KUR, WAT & SBP. Sub : Working hours of ECRCs over KUR Division. Ref : (1) SDCM/KUR’sSDCM/KUR/Staff/PRS/ Job.Analysis/2954 dtd. 24.8.2011. (2) Dy. CPO(1R&G)/ECoR/BBSLr. No.ECoR/Pers/IRM/Labour Advisory/17 dtd. 8.8.2011. The Railway Administration has agreed for re-introduction of 6 hours working for ECRCs with a time frame of six weeks. Honourable CAT while disposing MA 590/11 arising out of O.A. No.149/2011, has authorized E.C.O. Railway to finalize the decision in this matter. In view of the above, it is advised that 6-hours working hours of ECRs may be implemented in phased manner so as not to inconvenience the rail-users. The modality of fixing working hours especially in busy station having more number of counters may be decided by the Divisions keeping the head quarters appraised. This should also be given wide publicity.” A bare reading of the said letter shows that the letter refers to an observation of the learned Tribunal in another O.A., being O.A. No.149 of 2011 in which M.A. No.590 of 2011 was filed. It is further revealed that the said letter also relates to six hours working hour of ECRCS which the Chief Traffic Manager suggested to be implemented in phased manner so as not to inconvenience the rail users. Being aggrieved by the said order of modification of order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal on 9.5.2012, the Union of India has preferred the present writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order of modification of order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal on 9.5.2012, the Union of India has preferred the present writ petition. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the Union of India - petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the opp.Parties, who have appeared as Caveators. 6.The Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 prescribe in Rule 8, sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), as follows :- “8. Fixation of hours of work - The hours of work of a Railway servant as pre roster (hereinafter referred to as the rostered hours of work) may be continuous or may have short interval for rest, or breaks due to exigencies of service or deployment. (1) Subject to the limit specified in Section 132 and having regard to the requirement of the service and the nature of work, the Railway Administration shall fix the normal rostered hours of work for the various categories of railway servants in the manner indicated in these rules. (2) The rostered hours of work of Railway servants shall consist of - (i)Standard hours of duty; (ii)Additional hours as may be prescribed in the case of certain categories classified as essentially intermittent; and (iii)Time required to do preparatory or complementary work or both for those who are required to do such work. (3) The standard hours of duty for different classes of employment of Railway servants shall be as under :- (a) Intensive - 42 hours a week; (b) Continuous - 48 hours a week; and (c) Essentially Intermittnet-48 hours a week” The opp.parties - caveators under the Right to Information Act have obtained the information with regard to working hours. The information sought for were to the following queries :- (i)How many hours of duty an ECRC is performing at the computer terminal per counter in each shift functioning in Indian Railway. (ii)What is the opening and closing time of computerized counter for reservation functioning in Indian Railway. (iii)The relevant circular or above questions, I, II, if any, may please be supplied. The information supplied to the opp.parties are as follows :- “I, II & III) - A copy of instructions issued vide No.91/TG-I/20/P dated 22.4.1993 is enclosed. The timings of functioning of computerized PRS counters varies and depends upon the demand pattern and also the type of counter viz. The information supplied to the opp.parties are as follows :- “I, II & III) - A copy of instructions issued vide No.91/TG-I/20/P dated 22.4.1993 is enclosed. The timings of functioning of computerized PRS counters varies and depends upon the demand pattern and also the type of counter viz. General/Current counter etc.” (emphasis supplied) 7.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Transport and Dock Workers Union and others v. Mumbai Port Trust and another, (2011) 2 SCC 575 , while considering the validity of introduction of longer working hours for persons employed after certain date of enhance competitiveness of public sector Port Trust vis-a-vis service conditions with regard to fixation of hours of work, categorically laid down that fixing of hours of work, provided they do not violate any statutory provision or statutory rule, are really management functions and Courts must exercise restrain and not ordinarily interfere with such management functions. Courts should not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters unless the decision is clearly violate of some statute or is shockingly arbitrary. Adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimization of the Judges’ preferences. The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realize that administrative authorities have expertise in the field of administration while the Court does not. 8.Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal could not have modified its earlier order dated 1.3.2012 by the impugned order dated 9.5.2012. We, therefore, quash the order dated 9.5.2012 and direct that till disposal of the O.A., the order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal shall remain in force. 9.As it is submitted that the Original Application is ready for hearing, we direct the learned Tribunal to expedite hearing of the said O.A. so as to dispose of the matter at an early date. 10.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.