SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 607

2001(5) Supreme 613
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. Misra & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Employer in relation to the Management of G.C. of M/s. BCCL -Appellant
versus
Their Workmen, rep. By Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union -Respondents
Civil Appeal N. 2503 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15202 of 1999)
Decided on 30-3-2001

Headnote:Service Law-Appointment of persons who were underage on date of appointment-They could not be regularised particularly in view of specific provision that no person could work in mines who was underage-Underage disability could not vanish and no justification to uphold impugned order as their age was now 30 years . (Para 2)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court which has dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal though holding the questioned appointment of 11 persons were medically examined and were found to be under age in the year 1973 the year of their appointment. In spite of this it further held, underage disability now vanishes. We do not find such a finding could be sustainable in the eyes of law. Once this is found, they were under age in the year 1973, their regularisation based on such appointment cannot be upheld, specially when there is specific provision, no person can work in the mines who is underage. If this be so there is no justification for upholding the order as their age now is 30 years. The question is not of their employment on compassionate ground after attaining the requisitive age. The right which is claimed is the right from the date of initial appointment, in 1973. In fact, during the period 1973-1975 it is not in dispute they worked only for 75 days, since thereafter they are not working.

3. Hence for the aforesaid reasons we find the present appeal has merit and the High Court order cannot be sustained, accordingly, it is allowed. The impugned order are set aside. Costs on the parties.

Appeal allowed.

****************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top