GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus SRI VIKRAM CHAUDHARY AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 14-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SRI VIKRAM CHAUDHARY AND ORS. 
JULY 14, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
B 
SelVice Law: 
Regularisation and parity in pay-Persons engaged in projects of daily 
wages-In the absence of regular posts parity in wages does not arise-Ter-
C 
mination of selVices-Last come first go principle followed-Held, jus-
tified-Directions issued for payment of minimum wages prescribed under the 
statute or prevailing wages as available in the Locality. 
The appellants engaged the respondents on daily wages in its 
projects on hand. Respondents filed a writ petition claiming parity in D 
appointment and pay with regular employees and for regularisation of 
their services. The single judge of the High Court before whom the matter 
came up negatived the relief of regularisation and directed that principles 
in Ss. 25F and 25G or the Industrial Disputes Act be followed. 
In this appeal it was contended that Ss.25F and 25G have no applica-
tion; that in view of the local Industrial Disputes Act in U.P., the provisions 
of which would be applicable, and that the appellant not being an industry, 
even those provisions would not be applicable. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
E 
F 
HELD : 1. The Single judge did not intend to lay down that the 
appellant is an industry and that the principles contained in the Industrial 
Disputes Act, Central or the State Act stands attracted. He laid down that 
so long as the appellant has work on hand, it has no power to terminate 
the contingent employees engaged on daily wages and that in the event the G 
appellant needs to terminate their services the principle of last come first 
go should be followed and in the event of there being need for re-employ-
ment, preference be given to the displaced respondents. The observation 
made by the Judge is consistent with the well-established principles of 
natural justice and equity, justice and good conscience. (173-D-E] 
H 
171 
A 
c 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
2. The appellant needs· to take the services of the persons according to 
the requirement in the projects on hand. On completion of the existing 
projects in which the respondents are working, if the appellant undertakes 
any fresh project, instead of taking the services of fresh hands at the place 
of the new project, the appellant needs to take the services of the existing 
temporary daily wage respondents. In the event of the appellant not having 
any project on hand, the obligation to pay daily wages to the respondents 
does not arise. However, the appellant shall maintain the order of seniority 
of the daily wage employees and shall take the services of the senior most 
persons in the order of seniority according to the requirement of work. 
[173-G-H, 174-A] 
3. ~ince the respondents are temporary daily wage employees, so long 
as there is no regular posts available for appointment, the question of 
making pay on par with the regular employees does not arise. But the 
appellant should necessarily and by implication; pay the minimum wages 
prescribed under the statute, if any, or the prevailing wages as available 
I) in the locality. [174-B] 
.qVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6481 of 
1995. 
. 
. )•,' 
From tl:ie 'Judgment and Order dated 28.2.94 of the Allahabad High 
E 
Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 11535 of 1991. 
" 
0.P. Rana, R.B. Misra and Nalin Tripathi for the Appellants. 
Pramod Swarup for the Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the. Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Shri Pramod Swarup, Advocate takes notic~ for the respondents. 
G 
Leave granted: 
We have lieared the counsel on either side. The appeal arises from 
the order of single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 28.2.1994 made 
. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11535 of 1991. The appellant in its planned 
development of urban areas, pursuant ~o U.P. Urban Planning and 
:H · Development· Act, 1973, .had engaged the respondents on daily wages in 
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. V. CHAUDHARY 
173 
..... 
the project on hand. They filed a writ petition claiming parity in appoint- A 
ment and pay with the regular employees and also for regularisation of 
their services. The single judge, while negating the relief of regularisation, 
given directions to follow the principles in ss.25F and 25G of the Industrial 
Disputes Act. 
Objection taken by the appellants is that ss.25F and 25G have no· B 
application. It is stated that as 

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