IMPORTANT POINT
Relief of reinstatement and back wages are not automatic on termination being held bad. Instead monetary compensation as damages meets the ends of justice.

Judgment

R. Banumathi, J.

This batch of appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissing the writ petitions [W.P.No.6690 of 1996 (S/S) and batch] dated 14.09.2009, whereby the High Court upheld the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and directed the appellant-university to consider the respondents for regularisation of their services as and when the vacancies arise and till that time they be paid the emoluments, which are being paid by university authorities to similarly situated workmen against the unsanctioned posts.

2. Before we advert to the contentious points, it would be appropriate to highlight the factual background of the case. In the year 1989, the Finance Officer of the University of Lucknow, Mr. R.S. Vishvakarma engaged the respondents in this batch of appeals as Routine Grade Clerk (RGC)/Peon by oral engagement as daily wagers for the Central Accounts Office and they were being paid from out of the contingency fund. In order to prevent the abuse of power in engaging daily wagers, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Lucknow University issued Order No.VC/1932/90 dated 03.08.1990 notifying that the daily wagers would not be allowed to continue in any case after 31.12.1990 unless prior written approval was obtained from the Vice-Chancellor. It was further directed that if there was any need of any extra hand, the Section Heads must send a demand for creation of posts to the Deputy Registrar (Admn.) with details justifying the need so that a consolidated statement for sanction of new posts in the university be sent to the State Government. As per the appellant-university, the Finance Officer neither dispensed with the respondents/daily wagers nor did he obtain written approval from the Vice-Chancellor. The engagement of the respondents came to an end with effect from 01.01.1991.

3. The terminated workers sent a legal notice on 28.01.1992 through Mazdoor Sabha to the Vice-Chancellor stating that they served the university till 31.12.1990 continuously and that they were terminated without assigning any reason and put forth the demand for reinstatement in service and backwages. All the ex-daily wagers further filed individual applications to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Lucknow for conciliation of the dispute raised by them in February 1992. As no conciliation could be achieved, on the recommendation of the Conciliation Officer, the Deputy Labour Commissioner by his order dated 18.08.1992 referred all the cases to the Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication of the dispute between respondents and the appellant-university. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide order dated 30.01.1996 held that termination of the workmen from 01.01.1991 by the university is illegal and directed the reinstatement of respondent No.1 with full back wages. Being aggrieved, the appellant-university filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the award. The High Court disposed of the writ petition and connected petitions vide a common order dated 14.09.2009 affirming the award passed by the Labour Court and inter alia issued direction as aforesaid. The university has filed this batch of appeals assailing the order passed by the High Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that merely because a casual wage worker or a temporary employee worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was made without following the due process of selection as envisaged by the rules. It was submitted the respondents were not engaged as against any sanctioned post and the impugned judgment of the High Court directing regularisation is violative of the principles laid down by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Ms. Shobha Dikshit for the