INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. versus WORKMAN, INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 16-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

p' ,,,, 
INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 
A 
\c 
WORKMAN, INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 
NOVEMBER 16, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections JO and 11. 
c 
Industrial dispute-Reference-Daily rate employees-Regularization 
of--A Public Sector Undertaking, running on hug losses, appointed ten 
employees as causal workers on daily rate basis-These employees were 
appointed as casual workers on daily rate basis for the reason that they were 
dependants of employees dying in harness-Such appointments were made D 
by the company due to the persistent and prolonged agitation by the trade 
union since the company wanted to maintain industrial harmony, although 
there was no rule/policy for such compassionate appointments in the service 
j. 
of the company, which was already overstaffed in all its departmentsr-The 
ten daily rated employees made a claim for their regularization-Labour 
Court held that although the said employees were employed as "casual daily E 
rated employees" by the company, yet in view of their having continued for 
a long time, they were entitled to regularization-The High Court upheld the 
contention of the appellant that the said ten employees were not entitled to 
regularization-However, the High Court directed the company to continue 
the said ten employees in its service till their superannuation and that they F 
should be paid wages like the regular employee of the company-Correctness 
of-Held: Whereas a permanent employees has a right to the post, a tempora1y 
employee has no right to the post-It is only a permanent employee who has 
a right to continue in service till the age of superannuation-As regards a 
temporwy employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no 
right to the post at all-Hence, no direction can be passed in the case of any G 
temporary employee that he should be continued till the age of 
superannuation-in the instant case, the ten employees were appointed on 
purely casual and daily rate basis without following the releJJant .re1111"ce 
rules-Thus, they had no right to the post at all-High Court judgment set 
73 
H 
- ..... 
~ 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A aside-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 21, 37 and 41. 
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, running ori huge losses, 
appointed ten employees as casual workers on daily rate basis for the reason 
that they were dependants of employees dying in harness. Such appointments 
were made by the appellant due to the persistent and prolonged agitation by 
B the trade union since the appellant wanted to maintain industrial harmony, 
although there was no rule/policy for such compassionate appointments in 
the service of the appellant-company, which was already overstaffed in all its . 
departments. The said employees were given work in the nature of cleaning 
window panes. sweeping floors and such sundry jobs on contract basis which 
C work was not the work of the regular employees of the appellant-company. 
The trade union of the appellant-company started pressing and agitating 
for regularization of the aforesaid ten daily rated employees although a revival 
proposal was prepared before the Board of Industrial Finance and 
Reconstruction where the union agreed not to raise any demand which entailed 
D any liability. On reference of the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, the Labour Court held that although the said employees were employed 
as "casual daily rated employees" by the appellant-company, yet in view of 
their having continued for a long time, they were entitled to regularization. 
In the writ petition filed by the appellant-company, the High Court upheld 
E the contention of the appellant that the respondents - employees were not 
entitled to regularization. However, the High Court directed the appellant-
company to continue the respondents-employees in its service till their 
superannuation. The High Court further directed that the workmen in question 
should be paid wages like the regular employees of the appellant-company .. 
F Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High court failed to appreciate that when the appellant is 
still before the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction, and where 
G the Government is making an effort to again present a revival proposal, there 
was no justification to saddle the appellant with liabilities on the basis of 
com

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