2007 Supreme(SC) 1613

2007(8) Supreme 368
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ
C.S. Azad Krishi Evem Prodyogiki Vishwa— Petitioner
versus
United Trades Congress & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5873 of 2007
Decided on 13.12.2007

Headnote:Service law – Regularization of services – Entitlement to – Appointment of Respondent. 2 on daily-wages by Appellant University as a Laboratory Assistant cum Attendant -However job of Assistant Clerk, was also being taken from Respondent. 2 - Industrial dispute raised by Respondent 1 a trade union,on behalf of respondent 2 on premise that his services had not been regularized by University – Award passed by Tribunal directing regularization of services of respondent2 on ground that even though Appellant University had been taking work from concerned worker continuously as a Clerk he was being paid salary on a daily wage basis as a daily wage employee – Writ petition - Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – No provision in University Statute for appointment on daily- wages or on an adhoc basis-No averment by Respondent. 2 in his written statement that he had been appointed in terms of provisions of statute or prior thereto any advertisement therefor was made- A feeble attempt, was made by Respondent. 2 to state that he had been appointed against a permanent vacancy-However no such contention was raised by Respondent 2 in his written statement - No records to show that any offer of appointment was given to Respondent 2- Since it was inconceivable that an employee appointed on a regular basis would not be given an offer of appointment or would not be placed on a scale of pay –Hence held that Respondent. 2 was appointed on daily-wages- Industrial Court in passing impugned award proceeded on premise that Respondent. 2 had been working for more than 240 days continuously from date of his engagement- However same by itself not conferred any right upon a workman to be regularized in service- Working for more than 240 days in a year is relevant only for purpose of application of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing for conditions precedent to retrench t workmen - It does not speak of acquisition of a right by workman to be regularized in service - Industrial Court, committed a serious error in passing impugned award- Impugned judgment of High Court being unsustainable set aside.

       Facts of the case:-

       1.Respondent herein in the case was appointed on daily-wages by Appellant University as a Laboratory Assistant cum Attendant .However job of Assistant Clerk, was also being taken from Respondent 2. Industrial dispute was raised by Respondent 1 a trade union, on behalf of respondent 2 on premise that his services had not been regularized by University. An Award was passed by Tribunal directing regularization of services of respondent2 on ground that even though Appellant University had been taking work from concerned worker continuously as a Clerk he was being paid salary on a daily wage basis as a daily wage employee .Writ petition there against was dismissed by High Court.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court

       The Court held that there was no provision in University Statute for appointment on daily wages or on an adhoc basis. There was no averment by Respondent. 2 in his written statement that he had been appointed in terms of provisions of statute or prior thereto any advertisement therefore was made. A feeble attempt, was made by Respondent. 2 to state that he had been appointed against a permanent vacancy. However no such contention was raised by Respondent 2 in his written statement. There were no records to show that any offer of appointment was given to Respondent 2. Since it was inconceivable that an employee appointed on a regular basis would not be given an offer of appointment or would not be placed on a scale of pay. Hence held that Respondent. 2 was appointed on daily-wages. Industrial Court in passing impugned award proceeded on premise that Respondent. 2 had been working for more than 240 days continuously from date of his engagement- However same by itself not conferred any right upon a workman to be regularized in service. Industrial Court, committed a serious error in passing impugned award. Impugned judgment of High Court being unsustainable set aside.