M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. versus MANOJ SHRIVASTAVA

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MANOJ SHRIVASTAVA 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Daily wager-Claim for permanent status--Entitlement-Held: Daily 
wager is not entitled to status of permanent employee merely on ground of C 
having worked for more than 240 days-Where appointment of daily wager 
was not against a vacant post sanctioned by statutory aujhority nor made 
upon following the statutory law, he had no legarnght to be accorded 
permanent status-M.P. Grih Nirman Manda/ Adhiniyam, I972-Madhya 
Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, I96I-Standard D 
Standing Orders, Clause 2(i) and (vi)-Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations 
Act, I960-Section 3I(3) r/w 64A. 
Appellant is a State Housing Board constituted under the M.P. Grih 
Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972. Respondent was appointed by 
Appellant as a daily wager. 
E 
The questions which arose for consideration in the present appeal 
are 1) whether Respondent could be accorded permanent status though 
he was not appointed on any vacant post duly sanctioned by the statutory 
authority nor his appointment was made upon following the statutory law 
operating in the field and 2) whether Respondent derived a legal right to F 
be regularised in service merely because he had worked for more than 
240 days. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A person with a view to obtain th1e status of a 'permanent G 
employee' must be appointed in terms of the statmtory rules. It is not the 
case of the Respondent that he was appointed against a vacant post which 
was duly sanctioned by the statutory authority or· his appointment .was 
made upon following the statutory law operating in the field. The Labour 
537 
H 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A Court unfortunately did not advert to the said question and proceeded to 
pass its award on the premise that as the Respondent had worked for more 
than six months satisfactorily; in terms of clause 2(i) of the Standard 
Standing Orders made under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment 
(Standing Orders) Act, 1961, he acquired the right of becoming permanent. 
B For arriving at the said conclusion, the Labour Court relied only upon 
the oral statement made by the Respondent. [541-·F-H; 542-AI 
1.2. It is one thing to say that a person was appointed on an ad-hoc 
basis or as a daily wager but it is another thing to :1ay that he is appointed 
in a sanctioned post which was lying vacant upon following the due 
C procedure prescribed therefor. It has not been found by the Labour Court 
that the Respondent was appointed by the Appellant, which is a 'State' 
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, upon 
compliance of the constitutional requirements as also the provisions of the 
M.P. Grih Nirman Manda! Adhiniyam, 1972 or th•! Rules and Regulations 
framed thereunder. [542-A-CI 
D 
Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors .• 
(2005) 1 SCC 639 and M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity 
Board, [20041 9 SCC 755, referred to. 
2. A daily wager does not hold a post unless he is appointed in terms 
E of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. He does not derive any legal 
right in relation thereto. [543-F) 
State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors., (2006) I SCC 667, relied on. 
-3. It is now well-settled that only because a person had been working 
F for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized 
in service. 1544-D-EI 
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra and Ors., 
[20051 5 SCC 122; Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. and Anr. v. 
Digambara Rao and Ors., [2004) 8 SCC 262; Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. 
G Bhola Singh, 120051 2 sec 470 and Manager, Reserve Bank of India, 
Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors., [2005) 5 SCC 100., relied on. 
4. The appointment made by a person who has no authority therefor 
would be void. A fortiori an appointment made in violation of the 
H mandatory provisions or the statute or constitutional obligation shall also 
'r 
M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. MANOJ SHRIVASTAVA [SINllA. J.] 
539 
,_ 
- be void. If no appointment could be made in terms of the statute, such A 
appointment being not within the purview of the provisions of the .Act 
would be void; he cannot be brought within the cadre of permanent 
employees. The definitions of permanent employee' and 'temporary 
employee' as contained in the rules must, thus, be construed having regard 
to the ob

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