Railway Vendors Union Vs. Union of India  INSC 210 (12 April 1993)
Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India' held that the employees appointed in
the statutory canteens as well as those engaged in non-statutory recognised
canteens in the railway establishments are the railway employees and they are
entitled to be treated as such. In other respects, this Court had not granted
relief to other non-statutory employees while the writ petitions were pending.
The petitioners' association representing the persons appointed by the
commission vendors on the railway platforms on the various places also claime
parity to be treated as railway catering service. This writ petition came to be
dismissed and for review of that order the petitioners have filed this
petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in
another case Writ Petition No. 575 of 1987 etc., etc. the petitioners therein
claimed that there will be an order in same terms as in T.1. Madhavan v. Union of India2. That judgment was rendered on September 8, 1987.
was not brought to the notice of the three Judges' Bench when Khan case' was
decided. After Khan case1 was decided the non-statutory non-recognised cases
were directed for disposal. It would appear when W.P. No. 575 of 1987 etc. were
posted, instead of bringing to the notice of the Court of Khan case', Madhavan
case2 was referred as having being covered. Accordingly, it was ordered thus :
"There will be an order as in Madhavan v. Union of India2." Thus this
Court was led to believe that the law holding the field is Madhavan's ratio (a
two-Judge Bench) instead of Khan's ratio (three Judge-Bench) a binding
precedent. Therefore what is prevailing law is the one laid down by this Court
v. Union of India1 and the direction given by this Court in the above writ
petition referred to on September
22, 1992 would also
fall in line with Khan's ratio.
Supp SCC 191: 1990 SCC (L & S) 632: (1991) 16 ATC 541 2 1988 Supp SCC 437:
1988 SCC (L & S) 872 610 Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to
the parity of treatment. The question of review does not arise. The civil
miscellaneous petition is dismissed accordingly.