Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Sunil Shantram Satarkar

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10665-10667/2016

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SUNIL SHANTRAM SATARKAR RESPONDENT(S)

WITH C.A. NOS.5830-5831/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14279-14280/2017 @ CC Nos. 1491-1492/2017 C.A. NOS.5823-5824/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14277-14278/2017 @ CC Nos. 53-54/2017

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted in CC

Nos.1491-1492/2017 and 53-54/2017.

2. The appellants, who are common in all these

appeals, are aggrieved essentially by the direction

issued by the Industrial Court directing either

reinstatement or regularization/permanency in Class

IV. It is the case of the appellants that going by

the dictum laid down by this Court in Secretary,

State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi & Others,

Signature Not Verified reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, the respondents cannot be Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD

regularized or granted permanency. Our particular Date: 2017.05.05 11:15:28 IST Reason:

reference is invited to paragraph 53 of the judgment. 1

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on

the other hand points out that even going by the

judgment in Uma Devi (supra), the appellant was bound

to consider the case of respondents as one time

measure. Having not done that, the order passed by

the Industrial Court and as confirmed by the High

Court are only to be upheld in the peculiar facts of

these cases. It is also pointed out by the

respondents that in the case of similarly situated

workmen, regularization orders have been granted.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

orders will have to be verified.

4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the

respondents have been working as a daily wagers for

last more than 25 years. In case, any similarly

situated workmen who worked for 25 years or less have

been made permanent, we do not find any justification

in denying a similar treatment to the respondents

herein.

5. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of with a

direction to the appellants to consider the cases of

the respondents in the light of the directions issued

by the Industrial Court and as affirmed by the High

Court, taking into consideration similar treatment

granted to similarly situated workmen.

2

6. It will be open to the respondents to point out

similar instances to the appellants within a period

of one month from today. Necessary orders in the

light of the similar instances pointed out by the

respondents shall be passed by the appellants within

a period of one month thereafter.

7. We make it clear that these orders are passed in

the peculiar facts of these cases.

8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI;

MAY 01, 2017.

3

ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.7 SECTION XV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10665-10667/2016

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SUNIL SHANTRAM SATARKAR RESPONDENT(S) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing appeals)

WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 1491-1492/2017 (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 53-54/2017 (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)

Date : 01/05/2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Appellant(s) Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain,Adv.

For M/s. M.V. Kini & Associates

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar,Adv.

Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.

Leave granted in CC Nos.1491-1492/2017 and 53-54/2017. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed “Non-Reportable” Judgment is placed on the file)

4