BRANCH MANAGER, M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. versus SHRI S.C. PANDEY

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BRANCH MANAGER, M.P. STA TE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT 
CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. 
B 
c 
v. 
SHRJ S.C. PANDEY 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporations Service 
Recruitment, Selection Regulations 1976: 
Regulation I 6-Daily wager-Appointed by Branch Manager-
Termination of-Held, only Managing Director could issue an offer of 
D appointment-Appointment not being in terms of the service regulations, 
principles of estoppel and waiver not applicable -Though termination without 
complying with the provisions of s.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act was illegal, 
employee had been unjustly directed to continue in service-Instead of 
reinstating the employee, employer directed to pay compensation to him-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--Section 25-F--Estoppel. 
E 
Respondent was appointed as typist on daily wages by the Branch Manager 
of the appellant-Corporation. His services were terminated. He challenged the 
order before the Labour Court. Though the termination order had been given 
effect to, by virtue of the interim order of the Labour Court, he was allowed to 
continue in service. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that the respondent 
F had been illegally appointed by the Branch Manager as the appointing authority 
was the Managing Director, and as such he did not derive any legal right to 
continue in service, but the Labour Court held the termination order to be bad in 
law. The appeal, the writ petition and the Letters Patent appeal filed by the 
Corporation were dismissed. Aggrieved, the Corporation ftled the present appeal 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Industrial Court as also the High Court applied the principles 
of estoppel on the finding that the respondent was transferred from one branch to 
another. If his appointment was void, being contrary to regulations, the procedural 
648 
r 
r 
.. 
, 
I 
~ 
BRANCH MANAGER, M.P. STATE AGRO INDUS. DEVE. CORPN. LTD. v. SHR! S.C. PANDEY 
649 
provisions like estoppel or waiver were not applicable. The stand of the appellant A 
~· ·- had been that in terms of Regulation 16 of the M.P. State Agro Industries 
Development Corporations Service Recruitment, Selection, Regulations 1976 only 
the Managing Director of the Corporation could issue an offer of appointment 
The appointment of the respondent, thus, must be held to have been made only to 
meet the exigencies of services and not in terms of the service regulations. 
B 
[654-E-G] 
M.P. Housing Board & Anr .. v. Mano) Srivastava,[2006) 2 SCR 537; 
Mahendra Lal Jain & Ors. v. Indore Development Authority & Ors., [2005] I 
y 
SCC 639 and Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd v. Bhola Singh, [2005] 2 SCC 470, relied 
on. 
c 
State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh & Ors., [1964) 4 SCR 964, referred to. 
M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Narayan Singh Rathor and Ors., [1994) MPI..1959 and 
Dwarika Prasad Tiwari v. M. P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., [2001) 
8 sec 322, cited. 
D 
2. However, it has not been contended that the services of the respondent 
·1 
were not governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act He worked 
from 16.9.1985to19.5.1987. He must have, thus, completed 240 days of service. 
The termination of his services without complying with the provisions of Section 
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was, thus, illegal. He, however, had E 
unjustly been directed to continue in service by reasons of an interim order. The 
appellant cannot be made to suffer owing to a mistake on the part of the court 
The respondent also cannot take advantage of a wrong order. [654-H; 655-A-B] 
3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice 
would be sub-served if, in place of directing reinstatement of the services of the F 
respondent, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of 
compensation to him. [655-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1270 of2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 16.1.2004 of the Madhya G 
Pradesh High Court in LP.A. No. 182 of2002. 
Ms. Hetu Arora for the Appellants. 
,,. 
;t 
"-., 
Ashok Mathur for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant herein is a statutory corporation and, thus, a 'State' 
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 
The respondent herein was temporarily appointed as a Typist. H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.