HARYANA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus MAMNI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 02-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Modified

Judgment (excerpt)

A HARYANA STA TE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 
B 
v. 
MA MN I 
MAY2, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(oo)(bb)-Regularization-
Adhoc employee appointed for specific period-On expiry of that period re-
C appointed after a gap of 1-2 days-Held, adoption of such course of action 
by employer was with an object to defeat the purpose of Act-S.2(oo)(bb) is 
not attracted-On facts, employee was terminated 14 years back, hence her 
sen1ices cannot be regularized-Hence, compensation of Rs. 2 5000 awarded--
Labour Jaws-Compensation. 
D 
Respondent was appointed on adhoc basis initially for a fixed period. 
E 
On expiry of the fixed period, she was reappointed each time for the same 
period after leaving a gap of 1-2 days. She absented from work for few days 
and her services were terminated. She raised industrial dispute. Meanwhile, 
appellant-Corporation issued an advertisement for the said post but she did 
not apply. 
Labour Court found that the employer had not complied with the 
condition laid down under Section 2SF oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence 
she was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. Aggrieved appellant filed 
writ petition before High Court which was dismissed. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that appointment had"been 
for a fixed period hence the services of respondent could not be regularized. 
Modifying the impugned order by directing payment of compensation, 
the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The services of the respondent had been terminated and she 
H 
had been re-appointed after a gap of one or two days. Such a course of action 
was adopted by the Appellant with a view to defeat the object of the Act Section 
2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, is not attracted. 
[642-CJ 
638 
• 
HARYANASTATEELECTRONICSDEV.CORPN.v.MAMNI 
639 
1.2. The services of the respondent was terminated as far back in the A 
year 1992. Even if she is reinstated in her service on an ad hoc basis, her 
services cannot be regularized. [642-D-E) 
Secretary, State of Karna/aka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006) 4 
SCALE 197, relied on. 
1.3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, interests of 
justice would be sub-served if in the place of reinstatement with back wages, 
a lump sum amount is directed to be paid by way of compensation.This order 
B 
is being passed keeping in view the fact that the respondent has not worked 
since 1992. The post on which she may have been working must have also 
been filled up. It is wholly unlikely that respondent in the meantime had not C 
been wod<ing anywhere else, since the respondent had not placed any material 
on record to show that she had not been working. [642-F-G) 
2. The relief ofreinstatement with full back wages is not to be given 
automatically. Each case must be considered on its own merit. [642-H) 
D 
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subash Chand and 
Anr., f2006J 2 SCC 794, relied on. 
UP. State Brassware Corporation ltd and Anr. v. Udai Narain Pandey, 
JT (2005) 10 SC 344 and Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corportation) E 
v. State of UP. and Ors. Civil Appeal of(2006)@SLP (C) No. 23732 of 2004, 
referred to. 
3. Respondent shall be compensated by payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/ 
- instead of the order for reinstatement with back wages. (645-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2410 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.2004 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 2464/2004. 
Arvind Nayar and Kavita Wadia for the Appellant. 
Ranbir Singh Yadav, L.D. Sharma and S. Anand Krishna Raj for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
H 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
S.8. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
The respondent herein was appointed initially for a period of 89 days 
in the post of Junior Technician (Electronics) on an ad hoc basis on or about 
31.10.1990. In terms of an offer of appointment made to her, she was appointed 
therein. The post was purely temporary and her services were liable to be 
B terminated without assigning any reason or notice. It was categorically stated 
that the respondent shall have no claim for regular appointment having 
worked with the appellant-Corporation on ad hoc basis. Her services were 
extended from time to time. In each of the offer of appointment, indisputably, 
similar terms and conditions were laid down. The details

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