STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. v. PRANTIYA SINCHAI AVAM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK MAHAPARISHAD

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 187

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. v. PRANTIYA SINCHAI AVAM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK MAHAPARISHAD.pdf

Judgment text

> STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. V. PRANTIYA SINCHAI AVAM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK MAHAPARISHAD OCTOBER 12, 2007 -1, [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ. ] ' Labour Laws: Regularization-Daily wagers working/or more than sixyears~ Had completed 240 days in each calendar year-Claim for regularization-Allowed by Labour Court-Order upheld by High Court-On appeal, held: Before any direction for regularization can be given, factual position has to be noted as to whether there was any sanctionedpost-Suchfactual details not discussed by either Labour >--- Court or High Court-Matter remitted back to Labour Court to consider the factual background and to decide the matter afresh. ,.. ,. The 14 workmen in question were working on daily wages for more than six years and had completed 240 days in each calendar year. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether they ought to be regularized. Allowing the appeal, the Court --1 -+ HELD: 1.

There is no question ofany automatic regularization. The words 'regular' or 'regularization' do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure ofappointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. Further, when rules framed under Article 309 ofthe Constitution are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise ofthe executive powers ofthe Government under Article 162 thereof in contravention ofthe rules. Only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the. process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence ofemployment is totally different and cannot be equated with regularization. [Paras 8 and 9] [190-F-H; 191-A-B] Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v.

Uma Devi (3) and Ors. , (2006] 4 SCC 1 and B. N Nagarajan & Ors. v. State ofKarnataka & Ors. , (1979] 4 5CC 507, relied on. 2. The completion of240 days' work does not confer the right to regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination ofthe sen-ice. Only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in sen-ice. [Para 10] [191-C-D] Madhyamik Shiksa Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra & Ors. , [2005] 5 SCC 122; MP. Housing Board andAnr. v. AfonojSrivastava, [2006] 2 SCC 702; Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. , [2007) 1 SCC 533; Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , [2007] 1 SCC 408 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors. , (2007] 6 SCC 207, relied on. 3. It is not in dispute that some ofthe concerned workmen have been regularized.

Before any direction for regularization can be given, the factual position has to be noted as to whether there was any sanctioned post. Apparently, in the present case, these factual details have not been discussed by either the Labour Court or the High Court. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to consider the factual background and-to decide the matter afresh in the light ofwhat has been stated in Uma Devi's case and Hindustan Aeronautics' case. [Para 12] [192-C-D] Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. , [2006] 4 SCC 1 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh STATE v. PRANTIYASINCHAI AVAMBANDH YOGANA 189 and Ors. , (2007] 6 SCC 207, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4856 of 2007. From the Judgment and final Order dated 10. 8. 2005 ofthe High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 4894 of2001 (M/ S). P. N. Gupta for the Appellants. Bharat Sangal, Samyadip Chatterji and A.

Ramakrishnan for the Respondent. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAY;\T, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge ofthe Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the writ petition filed1 by f- the appellants. 3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:- / On the basis ofa dispute raised, reference was made to the Labour Court, Haldwani, Uttar Pradesh, referring the following question for adjudication:- "Whether the non-regularization of 14 members mentioned in the Schedule by the employers is improper or unjustified? Ifyes, to what relief/benefit the concerned workmen are entitled, from ~ which date and with what other details? " -; The employer took the stand that the concerned workmen were being engaged from time to time on temporary basis and wages and other benefits as admissible were being paid. The question ofany regularizatjon does not arise.

The Labour Court found that the employees were ~ot regularized because ofnon-creation ofposts by the Government. Stand t of the workmen was that several permanent posts were lying vacant in the Irrigation Department. The Labour Court accordingly directed that salary and other benefits ought to be paid to the concerned workers while considering them regular with effect from the date ofjudgment ofthe Labour Court. It was, accordingly, held that non-regularization was illegal. 4. A writ petition was filed before the Uttaranchal High Court which was dismissed by the impugned order. The High Court was ofthe view that all the 14 workmen, in question, were working on daily wages for more than six years and had completed 240 days in each calendar year and they ought to be regularized. Accordingly, the writ petition was ;dismissed. 5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted.

that the directions given by the Labour Court and the High Court were clearly contrary to what has been stated by a Constitution Bench ofthis Court in Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. , [2006] 4 SCC 1. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the concerned workmen had worked for more than 240 days in each of the six years they were engaged. Therefore, they were entitled to be regularized. 7. With reference to the order ofthe Labour Court, it is submitted that payments were being made to them on the basis ofsanctioned wages. From this, it was contended, it is clear that there were sanctioned posts. 8. In Uma Devi's case (supra), the issue relating to regularization was examined at length. It was essentially held that there was no question ofany automatic regularization. 9. In B. N Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

, [1979] 4 5 sec 507, it was held that the words "regular" or "regularization" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature oftenure ofappointments. They are G terms. calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. Further, when rules framed under Article 309 ofthe Constitution oflndia are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise ofthe executive powers ofthe Government under Article 162 thereof in contravention ofthe rules. This view has been approved by the STATEv. PRANTIYASINCHAIAVAMBANDHYOGANA 191 ,.. Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case (supra) at para 16.

It was emphasized here that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root ofthe process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence ofemployment is totally different and cannot be equated with regularization. 10. The next question which requires consideration is whether ~ completion of 240 days in a year confers any right on an employee or Ir workman to claim regularization in service. In Madhyamik Shiksa ' Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra & Ors. , (2005] 5 SCC 122, it was held that the completion of240 days' work does not confer the right to regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain ,__ . obligations on the employer at the time oftermination ofthe servi~e. In MP. Housing Board andAnr. V.

Monoj Srivastava, [2006] 2 sec 702 (paragraph 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is well settled that only because a person had been working ' for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized r in service. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens . / Ltd. , [2007] 1 SCC 533. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to employee working in a Government . Company in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , (2007] 1 SCC 408 and paragraphs 34 and 35 ofthe judgment are being reproduced below:- "34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularization. Regularization can only be done in accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules. In the case of ~ E. Ramakrishnan and Ors. v. State ofKera/a and Ors.

, [1996] ~ 10 5 SCC 565 this Court held that there can be no regularization de hors the rules. The same view was taken in Dr. Kishore v. State ofMaharashtra, [1997] 3 SCC 209) and Union ofIndia I and Ors. v. Bishambar Dutt, (1996] 11 SCC 341. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularizing the services of l I persons who had not been appointed, on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time. i· 35. In Dr. Surinder Sinqh Jamwal and Anr. v. State ofJammu & Kashmir and Ors. , AIR (1996) SS 2775, it was held that ad hoc appointment, does not give any right for regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory rules. 11. The above positi. on was highlighted in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. V. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors. , (2007] 6 sec 207. 12. It is not in dispute that some ofthe concerned workmen have. been regularized.

Before any direction for regularization can be given, the factual position has to be noted as to whether there was any sanctioned post. Apparently, in tl1e present case, these factual details have not been discussed by either the Labour Court or the High Court. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider the factual background and to decide the matter afresh in the light ofwhat has been stated in Uma Devi's case (supra) and Hindustan Aeronautics case (supra). 13. The appeal is al1owed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. B. B. B. Appeal Allowed. r