No Badge of Employment Without a Contract: Calcutta High Court Declares Canteen Workers Not Entitled to Railway Absorption

In a significant ruling, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court dismissed a long-standing writ petition by members of the Eastern Railway Quasi Employees Union, who sought recognition as Railway employees by virtue of their service in a co-operative canteen. The Court categorically held, “There is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the Railway administration”, sealing the fate of their demand for regularization.

Challenging a 2018 Industrial Tribunal award that had rejected their claims, the petitioners argued that the canteen, known as Asansol Railwaymen’s Cooperative Stores Ltd., functioned as a non-statutory recognized canteen under Railway supervision. The High Court, however, underscored that, “Recognition of a non-statutory canteen under Para 2833 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual requires more than physical presence on Railway premises—it requires a valid agreement, supervisory control, and official sanction, none of which were found.”

In refuting the claim of illegal lock-out by the Railway, the Court observed, “The concept of ‘lock-out’ under the Industrial Disputes Act is predicated on the existence of an employment relationship. Without an employer, there can be no lock-out.” The action of the Railway to recover dues and take possession of the premises was deemed lawful under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

The Court also rejected the plea that granting Railway employment to some quasi-workers created a right for the rest. Citing the constitutional bench decision in Umadevi, Justice Dutt reiterated, “Absorption in public service is permissible only against sanctioned posts, upon fulfillment of eligibility. A few selections based on availability of vacancy do not create an automatic entitlement.”

The petitioners, who had relied heavily on earlier Supreme Court decisions including M.M.R. Khan and Mohan Singh, were reminded that those precedents pertained to statutory canteens—a classification the petitioners failed to meet. As the judgment clarified, “Being issued medical benefits or Railway passes as a welfare measure does not confer the legal status of a Railway servant.”

In a concluding note, the Court firmly dismissed claims of discrimination under Article 14 and rejected all pleas for compensation or compassionate appointments. “In the absence of a legal right, no remedy can be granted. Welfare cannot be confused with entitlement,” the judgment declared.

The case, spanning over a decade of litigation, ends with a sharp judicial reminder that public employment cannot be claimed without contractual and legal footing, regardless of years of quasi-service or emotional investment.