HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. versus ASHOK RANGHBA AMBRE

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 15-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 688 
A 
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. 
~ 
v. 
ASHOK RANGHBA AMBRE 
(C.A. No. 391 of 2008) 
B 
JANUARY 15, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
• , 
Labour Laws: 
c 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appointment of workman 
to the post of compounder/dresser on casual basis -
Termination - Re-instatement of workman holding termination 
illegal and order attaining finality - Claim of permanent status 
to the post and benefits accruing therefrom - Entitlement of -
Held: Not entitled as re-instatement of workman in earlier 
D proceedings cannot be equated with confirmation, and status 
of permanency cannot be granted - Two things are distinct, 
different and operate in different areas - Thus, order of High 
Court that employee entitled to permanent status and all 
benefits accruing therefrom set aside - However, his case for 
E permanency to be considered sympathetically since he is 
working for two decades. 
The Appellant-Corporation appointed the respondent 
on casual basis as compounder/dresser in 1984. The 
F 
respondent filed a writ petition seeking permanent status 
to the post of compounder/dresser and all benefits flowing 
therefrom with effect from 6.6.1987. However, from 1996 
onwards, the Corporation stopped engaging the 
respondent since he was not appointed in accordance 
with the recruitment procedure and also was not qualified. 
G Respondent raised an industrial dispute. The tribunal 
passed an award of re-instatement of workman with back 
' . 
wages. It held that the workman though appointed as a 
daily wager, but had worked for more than 240 days in a 
calendar year just preceding his termination which 
H 
688 
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. v. 
689 
ASHOK RANGHBAAMBRE 
... 
amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of s. 25 of A 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such was entitled 
to re-instatement. Both the Single Judge as also Division 
Bench of the High Court upheld the award. The award 
attained finality. In the writ petition, the High Court held 
that the respondent was entitled to the status of 8 
permanent employee of the Corporation and all the 
~ 
~ 
benefits accruing on that basis with effect from the date 
of filing of writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Corporation contended that the High Court 
could not have directed the Corporation to make the c 
respondent permanent and grant benefit on that basis 
from the date of filing writ petition; that the respondent 
was never appointed in accordance with the recruitment 
procedure on regular basis, nor was he qualified to be 
appointed as Compounder-cum-Dresser, and as such the D 
.~ 
appellant-Corporation stopped engaging him; and that 
the order of re-instatement became final and to that extent, 
the Corporation could not make any grievance. 
Respondent-workmalJ contended that when the E 
action of termination of services of the workman was held 
to be bad and in the Reference, Award was passed in 
favour of the workman granting reinstatement and full 
back wages, the order by the High Court granting 
j 
permanent status and benefits thereto could not be 
objected; that the High Court did not commit any illegality F 
~ 
or impropriety requiring interference by this Court under 
Article 136 of the Constitution; that it was a consequential 
action based on earlier award; that the scope of Reference 
was limited to termination of services of the workman, 
therefore, the High Court considered the facts and G 
,.. " 
circumstances and rightly granted relief in favour of 
respondent; and that the petitioner could not be said to 
be 'not qualified' to be appointed as Compounder/ 
Dresser. 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
... 
HELD: 1.1 The question with regard to the 
termination of services of the workman was decided in 
his favour in earlier proceedings which had become final 
B and it is not open to the Corporation to argue that point. 
The Corporation rightly stated that the order holding 
termination of services of the workman being illegal and 
I 
contrary to law had reached finality. The workman was 
.. 
reinstated and was also granted all benefits to which he 
was held entitled in those proceedings. But, it has come 
c on record that at the time when the services of the 
workman were terminated in 1996, a writ petition filed by 
the workman in the year 1992 for the status of permanency 
and all benefits flowing therefrom was pending in the High 

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