1. Ld. counsel for petitioner and alleged contemnors are both present and heard.
2. It is very unfortunate that the applicants, who claim to have served Railways for more than 15 years, are litigating since 2008. Initially, they first preferred OA. 738/08 to seek regularisation, which was disposed of with a direction as under:
“in the interest of justice, we direct that the applicants shall file individual representation along with other relevant materials to the competent authority forthwith who, on receipt of such representation, shall consider and dispose of the same within four months from the date of receipt of such representation. The OA. is accordingly disposed of.”
The CPO on 13.02.2009 rejected their claim on the ground that “the petitioners have claimed to work for more than a decade for changing of rail lines, through packing of rail lines, servicing works of rail lines and repair works of railway platform and over bridge for passengers. Neither individual names of contract labour, areas of working, periods of working etc are mentioned nor any supporting documents are furnished in support of that claim. The petitioners have floated the claim, which is without any cogent basis” and since the job is prohibited under CLRA Act.
Challenging the speaking order, OA. 827/2010 was filed. It was disposed of with the order that “on the suggestion of counsel for both sides, we direct the authorities to delve into the representation, documents annexed, and pass individual orders in terms of OA. 738/08 from which the right for consideration emanates.” The order was assailed before the Hon'ble High Court where the respondents/writ petitioners lost. Thereafter, individual speaking orders dated 24.2.2015 were issued which were a replica of the earlier speaking order dated 13.02.2009. Hence, present CPC was preferred.
3. Ld. counsel for respondents/alleged contemnors submit that they have already complied with the direction of this Tribunal by issuing speaking order on 25.02.2015 but time and again this Tribunal indicated that it was not happy with the compliance since the speaking order dated 25.02.2015 was a replica of the earlier speaking order dated 13.02.2009 which stood challenged in the OA. 827/2010 and quashed. The rejection vide speaking order dated 25.02.2015 was on the same ground as in earlier order. Repeatedly orders have been issued to that effect, so that the order in OA. 827/2010 is complied with in letter and spirit, yet the respondents continue to flout the directions.
4. Since this Tribunal was never satisfied with the manner of compliance, it time and again directed the authorities to verify the documents to see and decide the representations in terms of the order passed in the OA. 738/2008 and OA. 827/2010 which made it imperative for the respondents to delve in to the representation, documents and issue individual order in terms of the OA. 738/2008. But the alleged contemnors/respondents are adamant that they would not verify the documents since the applicants failed to submit such documents before the speaking order was issued. The respondents have thereby repeatedly disregarded the directions of this Tribunal. Even the CPO, who was personally present on the last occassion, flatly refused to comply with the direction of this Tribunal to examine the documents in terms of the direction in OA. 827/2010 on the basis of the order in OA. 738/2008.
5. Hence, we ask the G.M., Eastern Railway to be present on the next date to explain why his officers are not implementing the order passed in OA. 827/2010, by undertaking the exercise as required to be undertaken in terms of OA. 738/2008, and why the speaking order dated 25.02.2012, which is a replica of earlier speaking order dated 13.02.2009 that already stood quashed in OA. 827/2010, was issued, in deliberate and conscious violation of the direction of this Tribunal.
6. List on 15.03.2019.
7. Plain copy of this order be handed over to the ld. counsel for both sides.