C.S. AZAD KRISHI EVAM PRODYOGIKI VISHWA VIDYALAYA versus UNITED TRADES CONGRESS & ANR.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'I-
A 
C.S. AZAD KRISHI EV AM PRODYOGIKI VISHWA 
VIDYALAYA 
--~-
v. 
UNITED TRADES CONGRESS & ANR. 
B 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ] 
'" 
Service law: 
c 
Regularization-Claim of by daily wager entrusted with work 
of clerk-Entitlement for-Held: Not entitled as University statute not 
providing for appointment of daily wager-Also constitutional 
requirement not complied with-Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam 
... 
D 
Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam) Act, 1958-Consitutiton of 
India, 1950-Articles 14and16-University. 
Appellant-University was created under the Uttar Pradesh 
(Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam) Act, 1958. 
The service conditions of employees of the University were governed 
E thereby as also by the statute framed thereunder. Its basic object 
was to undertake various training and projects for the betterment 
of agriculture. For the said purpose, persons were employed from 
time to time; sometimes project-wise. Respondent No.2 was 
appointed on daily wages on 1.7.1980. He worked as a Laboratory 
F Assistant-cum-Attendant, a Class IV post. The work of Assistant 
Clerk, however, was taken from him on and from 1.11.1991. He was 
paid at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day. He raised industrial dispute on 
the premise that his services had not been regularized by the 
University. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to an order passed 
G 
by the High Court on a concession made by the counsel for the 
University in a writ petition filed by other employees of the 
University, by an award directed that it was completely proved that 
the employer was taking work from the concerned worker from 
1.11.91 continuously as a clerk however he was being paid salary 
on a daily wage basis which was improper and illegal and the 
H 
704 
C.S. AZAD KRISHI EVAMPRODYOGIKI VISHWA 
705 
VIDYALAYAv. UNITEDTRADESCONGRESS 
concerned worker as per the nature of his work is entitled to be made A 
permanent and regularized in the post of clerk/typist. High Court 
dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant-employer. 
In · appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the 
appointment of the respondent No. 2 having been made de 'hors the 
! statutory rules, no direction for regularization could be issued; that B 
· the Industrial Tribunal could not direct regularization of a Class III 
·employee, particularly, when the respondent No. 2 had not worked 
~for a long time in the said post and that the Industrial Court could 
not grant a declaratory decree. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The University Statute does not provide for 
appointment on daily-wages or on an adhoc basis. Respondent No. 
c 
2 in his written statement filed before the Industrial Court did not 
make any averment that he was appointed in terms of the provisions D 
of the statute or prior thereto any advertisement therefor was made. 
According to him, he being a hard working, honest, efficient and 
eligible employee, was 'entrusted' with the work of a clerk from 
1.11.1991. In bis written statement, he did not raise contention that 
he was appointed against a permanent vacancy. It does not also E 
appear from the records that any offer of appointment was given to 
him. It is inconceivable that an employee appointed on a regular 
basis would not be given an offer of appointment or not be place.d 
on a scale of pay. The Industrial Court in passing the impugned award 
proceeded on the premise that Respondent No. 2 had been working F 
for more than 240 days continuously from the date of his 
engagement. It is now trite that the same by itself does not confer 
any right upon a workman to be regularized in service. Working for 
more than 240 days in a year was relevant only for the purpose of 
application of s.6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 G 
providing for conditions precedent to retrench the workmen. It does· 
not speak of acquisition of a right by a workman to be regularized in 
service. [Paras 11and12] [710-G-H; 711-C-E] 
Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. and Anr. v. Digambara Rao H 
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A and Ors., [2004] 8 SCC 262; Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, UP. v. 
A nil Kumar Mishra and Ors., (2005] 5 SCC 122; State of UP. v. Neeraj 
Awasthi and Ors., [2006) 1 SCC 667; A. Umarani v. Registrar 
Cooperative Societies and Ors., {2004] 7 SCC 112; Secretary, State 
of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., [2006) 4 SCC 1; 
8 Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ran

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