IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3190

OF 2011

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 12187 of 2009)

Devinder Singh

……Appellant

Versus

Municipal Council, Sanaur

……Respondent

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division

Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the writ petition filed by

the respondent whereby the award passed by Labour Court, Patiala (for

short, “the Labour Court”) for reinstatement of the appellant was set aside

and it was declared that he shall be entitled to wages in terms of Section

17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”).

3.

The appellant was engaged by the respondent with effect from

1.8.1994 for doing the work of clerical nature. He was paid consolidated

1

salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. He continued in the service of the

respondent till 29.09.1996. His service was discontinued with effect from

30.9.1996 without giving him notice and compensation as per the

requirement of Section 25-F of the Act.

4.

The appellant challenged the termination of his service by raising

an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the

Labour Court. In the statement of claim filed by him, the appellant

pleaded that he had continuously worked in the employment of the

respondent from 1.8.1994 to 29.9.1996; that his service was terminated

without holding any enquiry and without giving him notice and

compensation and that persons junior to him were retained in service. In

the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it was pleaded that

the appellant was engaged on contract basis and his service was

terminated because the Director, Local Self Government did not give

approval to the resolution passed for his employment. According to the

respondent, the resolution passed for engaging the appellant was sent to

the Deputy Director for approval, but the same was returned with the

remark that the approval may be obtained from the Director, Local Self

Government. Thereafter, the resolution was sent to the Director, Local

Self Government but no response was received from the concerned

2

authority and, therefore, it became necessary to discontinue the service of

the appellant.

5.

After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence

produced by them, the Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement of

the appellant without back wages. The Labour Court held that the

appellant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding

the termination of his service and that his service was terminated with

effect from 30.9.1996 without complying with the mandatory provisions

contained in Section 25F of the Act. The Labour Court rejected the plea

that the termination of the appellant’s service is covered by Section

2(oo)(bb) of the Act by observing that no evidence was produced by the

respondent to prove that it was a case of termination of service in

accordance with the terms of the contract of employment.

6.

The Division Bench of the High Court entertained and allowed the

writ petition filed by the respondent by relying upon the judgments of this

Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 1 SCC 1;

State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575; Uttranchal

Forest Development Corporation v M.C. Joshi (2007(2) SCC (L&S)

813; M.P. Administration v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748; Mahboob

3

Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575 and

Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar (2008) 4 SCC

261. The Division Bench was of the view that the Labour Court should

not have ordered reinstatement of the appellant because his appointment

was contrary to the recruitment rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution and it would not be in public interest to sustain the