Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 439

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Karamjit Singh – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3925 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29160 of 2018)
Decided On : 15-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Illegality of appointment goes to root of absorption as a regular employee.
(2) Protection envisaged by Article 311 of Constitution of India is not available where appointment itself is illegal.
(3) If initial appointment itself is void, then provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable for terminating services of such workman.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-F – Termination of daily wager – Order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained in eyes of law – If initial appointment itself is void, then provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable for terminating services of such workman – Enquiry conducted by Appellant – Authority revealed that officials were guilty of supplying wrong information to authorities regarding period of service rendered by some daily wagers, including Respondent – Officials had failed to verify information provided, before forwarding it to Authority – As a consequence, punitive orders were passed against each of officials – In these circumstances, Respondent was disentitled from getting benefit of a regular appointment with Appellant – Authority, in absence of fulfilling pre-requisite requirement – Since very appointment of Respondent on regular basis was illegal, he could not be treated as an employee of Appellant-Authority – Illegality of such an appointment goes to root of Respondent’s absorption as a regular employee – Respondent could not be considered to be an employee and would not be entitled to any benefits under Regulations applicable to employees of Appellant-Authority. (Paras 5.3, 5.5, 6.1 and 6.2)
       (B) Constitution of India – Article 311 – Termination from service – Daily wager – Question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under Article 311 of Constitution or under any other disciplinary rules did not arise in present case since Respondent was admittedly not an employee of Appellant-Authority and did not hold a civil post under State Government – He was merely a daily wager on muster rolls of Appellant-Authority – Regularization of services of Respondent was illegal and invalid – Respondent was provided full opportunity to adduce evidence to establish that he had 3 years’ continuous service prior to 22.01.2001 – However, he failed to furnish any proof whatsoever to substantiate his claim – Appellant-Authority rightly terminated Respondent – Order passed by Division Bench of High Court set aside. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
       Facts of Case:
       Respondent was appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wages by Appellant – Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority. Respondent had sought to secure regularization of his services, even though he did not fulfill pre-requisite of a minimum of 3 years of continuous service prior to 22.01.2001 as per revised Policy of Government of Punjab for regularization of work-charged, daily wage, and other similar categories of employees. Respondent had sought to have his name included in final list recommended for regularization by colluding with certain officials of Appellant – Authority, who had interpolated his name in the final list forwarded to the Authority.
       Findings of Court:
       It is abundantly clear from facts of the case and material on record that regularization of services of Respondent was illegal and invalid. Respondent was provided a full opportunity to adduce evidence to establish that he had 3 years’ continuous service prior to 22.01.2001. However, he failed to furnish any proof whatsoever to substantiate his claim.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the final Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in LPA No. 894 of 2018.

2. The factual background of the case, is as under: 2.1. On 01.12.1995, the Respondent was appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wages by the Appellant – Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority. His name was on the muster rolls till 31.03.1997.

2.2. On 23.01.2001, the Government of Punjab revised the Policy for regularization of work-charged / daily wage and other categories of employees.

2.3. On 26.12.2001, the Appellant – Authority issued an Office Order regularizing the services of 102 daily wagers as per the State Government’s revised Policy dated 23.01.2001.

2.4. The Respondent’s name was included in the Office Order issued by the Appellant – Authority.

Consequently, his services came to be regularized w.e.f. 06.11.2001.

2.5. Subsequently, two employees of the Appellant – Authority viz. Baldev Singh and Rikhi Ram, filed Writ Petition No. 15843 of 2002 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, challenging the Office Order dated 26.12.2001. The Respondent was impleaded as a party in the said Writ Petition. It was alleged that there were irregularities in the regularization of certain employees, including that of the Respondent.

2.6. The High Court vide Order dated 01.10.2002, directed the Appellant – Authority to treat the Writ Petition as a representation on behalf of the writ petitioners, and pass a speaking order within 4 months.

2.7. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Appellant – Authority scrutinized the list of employees who were regularized vide Office Order dated 26.12.2001. The Authority called for a report from the Executive Engineer (C/Project – II), Mohali. The report revealed that the Respondent had not completed the requisite period of 3 years’ service prior to 22.01.2001.

2.8. The Appellant – Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24.03.2003 to the Respondent directing him to appear before the Chief Administrator of the Appellant – Authority on 31.03.2003 for a personal hearing.

2.9. On 31.03.2003 the Respondent appeared before the Chief Administrator of the Appellant – Authority for the personal hearing. The Chief Administrator found that the Respondent failed to furnish any evidence whatsoever, documentary or otherwise, or any satisfactory proof of having served the Appellant – Authority for at least 3 years prior to 22.01.2001.

2.10. The Respondent challenged the Order dated 22.05.2003 passed by the Chief Administrator, by way of Writ Petition No. 8354 of 2003 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

2.11. On 20.12.2003, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute against the Appellant – Authority before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab. The matter was referred to conciliation.

2.12. The Respondent submitted that his services had been illegally terminated by the Appellant – Authority vide Order dated 21.11.2003. He contended that he had continuously worked with the Appellant – Authority from 01.12.1995 till 21.11.2003, and had put in more than 240 days of service in the last calendar year. The Respondent alleged that the termination of his services was in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2.13. The Appellant – Authority submitted that the Respondent worked as a daily wager, whose name was borne on the muster rolls. As per the record, there were breaks in his service from 01.12.1995 till 31.03.1997. He had put in only 6 months of service prior to 31.03.1997. After 1997, the Respondent was not employed as a daily wager with the Appellant – Authority.

2.14. The Industrial Tribunal, Patiala dismissed the Reference made by the Respondent vide Order dated 15.10.2013. It was held that since the entry of the Respondent into service on 26.12.2001 was through wrongful means, his services were rightly t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 439

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. – AppellantsVersus Karamjit Singh – RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NO. 3925 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29160 of 2018)Decided On : 15-04-2019

Cases Referred (7)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Karamjit Singh – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3925 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29160 of 2018)
Decided On : 15-04-2019