M/S. INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. versus DEVKI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 05-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
MIS. INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 
A 
v. 
DEVKI DEVI AND ORS. 
JULY 5, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Job contract-Several workers of a public sector company died in 
harness-Company gave job work to their widows/dependants i.e. Respondents C 
on contract basis-Language of contract clear and unambiguous-No material 
to conclude that compassionate appointment had been given since Company 
had no rule or scheme therefor-Consequently, Respondents cannot be 
considered as workmen-Cessation of their work pursuant to subsequent 
termination of the contracts by Company in view of financial stringency did D 
not amount to retrenchment-UP. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947-Section 6N 
and Sections 2(p) and 18(1) rlw Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) 
Rules, 1957. 
Appellant is a public sector undertaking fully owned and controlled 
by the Government of India. Several of its workers died in harness. The E 
Workers' Union demanded employment for .the widows and dependants 
of the deceased workmen i.e. the Respondents. Appellant agreed to 
consider the claim sympathetically but later decided to give job work to 
the Respondents on contract basis. Ten years later Appellant terminated 
the contracts in view of financial stringency. Respondents raised industrial F 
dispute. Labour Court passed award against the Appellant on the ground 
that the Respondents were workmen and therefore entitled to be 
regularised. It held that cessation of their work amounted to retrenchment 
which was in violation of Section 6N of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947. High Court upheld the award on grounds that the Respondents were 
engaged pursuant to a settlement between the appellant and the Workers' G 
union, and that what was projected by the Appellant as job contract is 
nothing but employment given under dying in harness scheme. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
279 
H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The claim of person concerned for appointment on 
compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on 
the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the 
touchstone of Article 14 or 116 of the Constitution. However, such claim is 
considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis 
B occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and 
dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame 
rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand 
the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground 
cannot be claimed as a matiter of right. Die-in-harness scheme cannot be 
made applicable to all types; of posts irrespective of the nature of service 
C rendered by the deceased-employee. 1284-E-G] 
1.2. As a rule in public: service appointment should be made strictly 
on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment 
on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely 
an exception to the aforesaild requirement taking into consideration the 
D fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without 
any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to 
get over sudden financial cr1isis. But such appointments on compassionate 
ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or 
administrative instructions taking into considtration the financial 
E condition of the family of the deceased. Undisputedly the appellant-
company does not have any rule or scheme for compassionate 
appointment. 1285-A-C; 2841-D] 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr., AIR (1996) SC 2445; 
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and 
p Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 718; Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and 
Ors., (19189) 4 SCC 468; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., 
(1994] 4 SCC 138; Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors., 11991] Supp. 
2 SCC 689; Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh, 11995] 6 SCC 476; 
Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors., 
11998) 5 SCC 192; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Paras Nath, 11998) 2 SCC 412; 
G Commissioner of Public Instructions and Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, (2005] 7 
SCC 206 and State of U.P. and Ors. v. Paras Nath, (1998] 2 SCC 412, relied 
on. 
OJ/leers and Supervisors of IDPL v. Chairman and MD., IDPL and O

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