U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Etc. vs Vijay Kumar Upadhayay & Anr. Etc.
- SCC(1997) 9 SCC 334
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 1778
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an earlier order of this Court has attained finality granting regularisation of services to certain employees, subsequently appointed employees who are senior to those whose regularisation was confirmed cannot be denied the same benefit merely because subsequent developments (such as establishments being handed to the private sector or wound up) have created practical difficulties for the employer; the employer must proceed to regularise their services, though it may seek to resolve implementation difficulties through tripartite negotiation with the workers' union and the Labour Department.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
PETITIONER: U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT: VIJAY KUMAR UPADHAYAY & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/1997
BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 451-455 OF 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17404, 20099, 20100-20100A/93 and 8998/96) O R D E R Leave granted.
We heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the respondents came to be appointed on ad hoc basis pursuant to writ petition fild earlier by many others. The High Court by its judgment dated 4.2.1991 in Writ Petition No 295337/90 had allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the retrenchment and directed regularisation of their services. Some of the respondents, admittedly, are senior to those who had the benefit of the order of regularisation as confirmed by this Court as on May 10, 1991. Consequently, following the earlier judgment, the High Court in the impugned order allowed the writ petitions with similar directions. Thus, these appeals by special leave have been filed.
In view of the fact that the earlier orders of this Court have become final, the respondent are entitled to regularisation of their services. The learned counsel for the appellants has brought of our notice that since subsequently there was a development after the orders passed by this Court, namely, some of the establishments have been handed to the private sector and some of them are in the process of being wound up, the orders passed earlier by the High Court as confirmed by this Court and the present order would cause hardship to the appellant-Corporation. We do not think that we can go into that aspect of the matter particularly, when the order in favour of some of the employees has attained finality. Similarly, the respondents are entitled to the some benefit.
However, if there is any difficulty in working out, it will be open to the Corporation to convene a tri partite meeting consisting of workers', Union, One of the officers of Labour Department and an officer of the appellant- Corporation would thrash out the problems and arrive at an amicable settlement to diffuse and sort out the above difficulty.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. In view of the above directions, the direction for view of the above directions, the direction for contempt issued by the high Court may not be enforced. However, the appellant- Corporation shall regularise their service and it will be subject to the suggestions made hereinbefore. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free