AFAQ HUSAIN versus UPSRTC & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 999 · Decided: 24-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 6 S.C.R. 999 
-~.,-
AFAQ HUSAIN 
A 
v. 
UPSRTC & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.2958 of 2008) 
APRIL 24, 2008 
B 
4, 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
r 
UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.6N: 
Appellant appointed in Respondent-Corporation from 
time to time on ad hoc basis as daily wager - In 1976, c 
appointed for 3 months - Thereafter, termination - Industrial 
dispute raised in 1982 - Labour Court, on premise that 
Appellant worked continuously from 1972 to 1976, held that 
s. 6N had not been complied with and consequently directed 
reinstatement - Writ petition - High Court directed payment D 
of Rs. 50, 0001- as compensation in lieu of re-instatement - On 
-·-1 
appeal, held: Labour Court while directing re-instatement did 
not take all relevant factors into consideration - ft failed to notice 
the admission of Appellant that his appointment was a need 
based one and for limited period - Award of Labour Court 
E 
cannot be upheld, particularly since Respondent-Corporation, 
being a 'State' within meaning Art.12 of the Constitution, was 
obligated to follow constitutional requirements of Arts.14 and 
16 of the Constitution as a/so the recruitment rules, if any, 
framed by it, but appointment of Appellant did not satisfy the 
F 
constitutional requirements - He was not and could not have 
I 
been appointed on substantive basis - Assuming that 
requirements of s. 6N of the Act had not been complied with, 
even then, Appellant has been awarded just compensation, 
particularly since he, without any right, worked in the 
G 
Corporation for 18 years - In facts of the case, Appellant was 
not even entitled to any compensation as envisaged under 
s. 6N, particularly, as he was appointed for 3 months only -
~ 
His services had been terminated on expiry of the fixed period 
- Furthermore he raised industrial dispute after a long time -
999 
H 
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
' -
A Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 12, 14, 16. 
Appellant used to be appointed as a Conductor in 
Respondent-Corporation from time to time on ad hoc 
basis as a daily wager. In 1976, he was appointed for a 
B 
period of three months. Thereafter, his services were 
terminated. Allegedly, he was paid one month's notice pay 
; 
before termination. An industrial dispute was raised by 
1 
Appellant in the year 1982. The Labour Court, on the 
premise that Appellant had worked continuously from 
1972 to 1976, held that the provision of Section 6N of the 
c U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied 
with and consequently directed his reinstatement. 
Respondent filed writ petition before High Court which 
directed payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in lieu 
of the re-instatement. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to 
;.-
pass an award of reinstatement is not disputed but the 
same would not mean that a workman would be directed 
E to be reinstated in service without taking all relevant 
factors into consideration. [Para 12] [1007-A-B] 
1.2. Appellant was appointed as a Conductor from 
time to time. The Labour Court, in its award, proceeded 
F 
on the basis that he had been working continuously from 
1972 to 1976. It failed to notice the admission of the 
appellant that his appointment used to be a need based 
' ' 
one. The Labour Court did not arrive at a finding of fact 
that periodical appointment and termination of the 
services of the appellant was either malafide or the same 
G was being resorted to by way of unfair labour practice so 
as to deprive the workman from obtaining his legal dues. 
[Para 8] [1005-D, E] 
1.3. The award of the Labour Court that he should 
H be reinstated in service cannot be upheld, particularly in 
-" 
•. 
__ , 
AFAQ HUSAIN v. UPSRTC & ANR. 
1001 
view of the fact that the respondent-Corporation, being a A 
'State' within the meaning Article 12 of the Constitution, 
was obligated to follow the constitutional requirements 
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the 
recruitment rules, if any, framed by it. The appointment of 
the appellant did not satisfy the constitutional B 
requirements. He was not and could not have been 
appointed on substantive basis. [Para 11] [1006-G-H; 
1007-A] 
Swedish Match AB and Anr v Securities and Exchange 
Board, India & Anr (2004) 11 SCC 641 and UCO Bank & Anr C 
v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694 - referred to. 
2. The pre-condition for applicability of s.6N of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.