LexHINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. versus DAN BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•/
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.
A
v.
DAN BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.
APRIL 27, 2007
(G.P. MA THUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.]
B
-J._
Labour Laws:
Regularisation-Workman is an industrial establishment like Appellant c
Government company-Position of-Held: ls entirely different from that of a
Government servant-Limited protection available to the former-He may
lose his employment in various contingencies provided under the Industrial
Disputes Act-Difference from type of tenure of service normally enjoyed by
a permanent employee in Government Service, namely, to continue in service
till the age of superannuation-Claim for permanency in an industrial D
establishment has to be judged from a different angle-Need for judicial
restraint-Court cannot create a post where none exists-Completion of 240
I
days in a year does not confer any right on a workman to claim regularization
in service-Companies Act, 1956-Section 617-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226.
E
Respondent workers were continuing as daily rated gardeners (malies)
in Appellant government company for number of years. They filed writ petition
claiming regularization of service and continuance in service without any beak
as well as equal pay for equal work.
)
High Court issued a direction to absorb the Respondents as regular F
employees or such of them as may be required to do the quantum of work
available on perennial basis and further direction that they be paid the wages
of regular employees. The Court further directed that such workers who are
not absorbed as regular employees shall not be disengaged and shall be allowed
to continue as per settlement entered with between workers and management G
)\·
of Appellant company and shall be regularized as and when the perennial work
is available.
In appeal to this Court it is contended by the appellant company that it
is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies
923
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 5 S.C.R.
A Act and the persons employed in its factory are not government servants but
\'
are mainly governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and other
allied enactments; that a government servant enjoys a status on account of
constitutional provisions and rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution, which is not the case with the Respondent workers and that the
B
Trade Union having entered into settlements with the appellant can claim
rights only on the basis of the said settlements and no claim for regularization
or permanency in service or grant of pay scale at par with those who are in
the regular es~ablishment of the appellant is maintainable.
j-
~
Respondents, on the other hand, contended that they had worked for more
c than 240 days in a year for more than 6-7 years before the filing of the writ
petition; that an artificial break of2-3 days was deliberately created twice or
thrice in a month in their service just to deprive them of continuity in service;
that they havir.g worked for a very long period and work being available, they
should be given permanent status and also the same pay scale which is being
D
given to those who are in the regular establishment of the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The position ofa government servant is entirely different
from that of a workman who is working in an industrial establishment like
E the appellant Company, a government company within the meaning of Section
617 of the Companies Act A government servant enjoys a status and a security
of tenure on account of certain constitutional provisions. [Para 10) [931-FJ
1.2. An appointment in government may be on probation or in temporary
capacity or permanent in nature. A permanent government servant has a right
F
to hold the post and he cannot be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank
unless the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution or the Rules
'(
governing his service are complied with. [Para 111 (932-8, q
1.3. An employee working in an industrial establishment enjoys a limited
G
kind of protection. He may lose his employment in various contingencies which
are provided under the Industrial Disputes Act such as lay off as provided in
Section 25-C, retrenchment as provided in Section 25-F, transfer of industrial
{
establishment or management of an undertaking as provided in Section 25-
FF, closure of undertaking as provided in Section 25-FFF. He may be entitled
to notice or wagesExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.