Friday, July 21, 2017

PR case was filed initially at CAT Bangalore on 30.03.1999

Relief sought:

1. ‘Declare that applicants are entitled to avail the head quarter rest as provided under Para 12 of section VI of Hours Of Employment Regulations 1961,(HOER) independent of Periodical Rest as provided under Para 11 section VI of HOER and overlapping of the Periodical Rest with the head quarters rest as aforesaid is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and unconstitutional.

2. Direct the respondents (UOI and others) to grant the applicants Periodical Rest as provided under section 133 of Railway act, 1989 read with Para 11 of section VI of HOER at fixed intervals in continuation of the head quarter rest which may fall due in terms of Para 12 of section VI of HOER’

The Hon. CAT/Bangalore on 03.11.1999 ordered that:

“The respondents counsel submit that the applicants could give a representation to the 4th respondent (RLC) with regard to their entitlement to avail head quarter rest and Periodical Rest as it is the 4th respondent who is the authority under the regulations and that if such a representation is given the 4th respondent after hearing the respondents 1 to 3 (UOI, Rlys) would pass appropriate orders. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have still not given any representation to the 4th respondent and that they have no objection to give a representation to the 4th respondent in this regard.

In view of this, the present application is disposed of permitting the applicants to give a representation to the 4th respondent seeking the relief which they have now sought and on such representation being given the 4th respondent shall consider the same after hearing the respondents 1 to 3 and the applicants (IRLRO) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The 4th respondents will dispose of the representation within six months from the date of which such representation is given”

(Adv. TC Govinda swamy OA 253/1999. CAT Judgment dated 03.11.1999Applicant: IRLRO Bangalore, Respondents: 1. Union of India (UOI), 2.General Manger/ SR, 3.DRM /SBC, 4.RLC Bangalore)

Based on this judgment of CAT Bangalore, IRLRO approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bangalore on 24.01.2000. RLC Bangalore gives its order on 22.10.2001 as follows.

RLC Bangalore Order: 

“The Running staff shall be entitled to Periodical Rest as prescribed under the HOER. However, where the head quarter rest over lapse, the running staff shall be entitled for payment of compensation in lieu of the head quarter rest at a rate which would be “Twice” the normal rate of wages.

The Railway administration shall decide on the modalities and implement them so as to ensure that no running staff over works, even if he desires to, on his own volition. 

The implementation report shall be submitted to this office within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order “

Sri. G RAMACHANDRA (Authority under Hours of Employment Regulation and Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bangalore) 

Respondents (Ministry of Railways) filed an appeal before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi who passed an order on 01.05.2003 quashing the order of RLC Bangalore vide F No. Z 20025/2/CLS.I 

Applicants (IRLRO) filed a writ petition at High Court of Karnataka demanding to set aside the order of appellate authority through WP No. 45729/2003 (L/RES) and the High court on 8th Oct 2007 disposed of the petition holding that the CAT is to adjudicate the matter.

Applicants filed OA 33/2008 on 22.04.2008 at CAT Bangalore and sought:

1. An order/direction to set aside the order under F.No.20025/2/2002-CLS I of respondent No. 4 (RLC)

2. An order/direction on the respondents 1 to 3 (UOI,Rlys) to limit the hours of work to the locomotive running staff as per provisions of section 133 of the Railway act and rule 8 of Railway rules.

3. An order/direction on the respondents 1 to 3 to grant Periodical Rest to the locomotive running staff according to the provision of section 133 of the Railway act and rule 12 of Railway rules…. 

Hon’ble Smt KNK Karthiayani Member (A) on 01.04.2010 ordered that:

“10. For the forgoing reasons and discussions made above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order No F.No.Z. 20025/2/2002 CLS I dated 01.05.2003 issued by the respondent 4(Annexure A/6) is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent no 1 to 3 to limit the hours of work of Locomotive Running Staff as per the provisions of section 133 of Railway Act and rule 8 of Railway Rules and further direct the respondent 1 to 3 to grant Periodical Rest to Locomotive Running Staff as per the provisions of section 133 of Railway Act and rule 12 of the Railway Rules”

Railway approached High Court of Karnataka, Circuit bench at Dharward.

Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of constitution of India to quash the order dated 01.04.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in OA 33/2008.

Hon.Ravi Malimath J, Judge, High Court Of Karnataka Ordered on 13.04.2012 that:

1. The respondents filed OA no.33/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, seeking for rest hours to which they are entitled to, in terms of relevant statutes and rules.

2. The tribunal by a detailed consideration of the contention of both parties ordered as follows.

“10. For the forgoing reasons and discussions made above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order No F.No.Z. 20025/2/2002 CLS I dated 01.05.2003 issued by the respondent 4(Annexure A/6) is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent no 1 to 3 to limit the hours of work of Locomotive Running Staff as per the provisions of section 133 of Railway Act and rule 8 of Railway Rules and further direct the respondent 1 to 3 to grant periodical rest to Locomotive Running Staff as per the provisions of section 133 of Railway Act and rule 12 of the Railway Rules…. Under these circumstances we fail to understand as to how the union (UOI) is aggrieved by such a direction issued directing compliance of the statute and the rules. For the aforesaid reasons the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.”

AILRSA is of the learned opinion that series of litigation alone cannot achieve any benefits on PR. It is evident from the delay in getting implemented the favourable order from the Authority on HOER, RLC/SBC issued in the year 2001, to grant PR independent of HQ Rest.

Com L Mony writes: 

WHY AILRSA demands 40 hrs PR

The RLC/SBC order not strictly says to grant 46 hrs PR. It says that the Head Quarter rest and Periodical Rest should not run concurrently, that means both should be independent of each other. That is why we say the PR should be 16+30 = 46 hrs.

Prima facie it appears correct.

Then whether asking 40 hrs rest by AILRSA is unjustified?

See the position of HOER rules. There is 22 hrs and 30hrs PR still exists. If the Railway says, they will give 16hrs +22hrs PR, then that will come to 38hrs only. When the RLC gave the order in 2001, the HQ rest was 12/16. Then Railway can give 12+22=34, if working hrs is less than 8hrs.

You know that the Pass/Exp Crew working hrs will be less than 8hrs in most of the time. Then what you get as PR as per the judgment is only 12 +22 = 34 hrs (before the present order of I6 hrs HQ rest.)

We demanded to implement the HPC recommendation on PR, which is 40hrs. If Railway is accepting 40 hrs PR then also we can claim HQ rest independently (40+16)

The concept of ILO Convention R 161 of 1979 on “Hours of Work and Rest Period” is that the Periodical Rest and daily rest should be independent of each other. The RLC Bangalore, the authority on HOER interpreted its provisions and ordered that the Periodical Rest and head quarters rest are two different connotations and staff are eligible to get Periodical Rest independent of head quarters rest. HPC recommended on the representation of AILRSA to enhance the Periodical Rest hours to 40 instead of present 22/30 hrs.

So AILRSA now decided to adopt a twin strategy of strengthening the fights on this major demand in different form of agitations including claiming of PR independent of head quarters rest. At the other hand to take all possible legal measures for getting PR independent of head quarter rest . First of this move has been started in the Mail crew link case of TVC/PGT of Southern Railway before the Dy.CLC/Cochin. Association strongly believes that our fights on the issue will give its result in a short period so that staff can enjoy Periodical Rest independent of head quarter rest.





0 comments:

Welcome To AILRSA....

Visitors

Admin Area

Blog Archive

AILRSA 1970 - . Powered by Blogger.

Follow by Email

Are You Satisfied with 7th Pay commission ?

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Text Widget

Followers

-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------