MAHENDRA L. JAIN AND ORS. versus INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 22-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHENDRA L. JAIN AND ORS. 
v. 
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 2004 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Appointment-On daily wages-Posts not sanctioned-Service rules 
C not complied with-Appointment letter not given-Employees posted on 
project-Claim for regularization of service and 'equal pay for equal 
work '-Claim granted by Labour Court but denied by High Court-On 
appeal, held: The appointments were void ab initio being opposed to public 
policy as also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-
D Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right-An illegal appointment 
cannot be legalized by taking recourse to regularization-A daily wager 
in absence of a statutory provision in this behalf would not be entitled 
to regularization-Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' also not 
applicable-Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nibesh Adhiniyam, 1973-
Section 47-MP. Development Authority Services (Officers and Servants) 
E Recruitment Rules, 1987-MP. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Act, 1961-Section 2(2)-MP. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Rules, 1963-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 16 and 39. 
Appellant-employees were appointed by respondent-Authority on 
F daily wages and were posted on a project. After sometime they began 
receiving a salary and they were granted benefit of provident fund and 
leave. After completion of the project, the maintenance job was taken 
over by the Municipal Corporation. Industrial dispute was raised by the 
appellants as their services were not regularized. They took alternate 
plea of continuance of their services with the Municipal Corporation. 
G Labour Court gave the award in favour of the appellants on the basis 
of M.P. Industrfal Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and M.P. 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rule, 1963. In Writ Petition 
against the award, High Court held that appellants not being appointed 
against sanctioned post and only for the work of project, the project 
H having been completed, their services could not be regularized; that 
242 
.. 
M.L. JAIN v. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
243 
1961 Act and 1963 Rules were not applicable; that though there was no A 
specific pleading raised regarding applicability of the 1961 Act and 1963 
Act, by the respondents, nor any question was referred to the Labour 
Court, touching the said issue, it committed an error in granting relief 
to them on the basis thereof on its own motion; that the doctrine of 
'equal pay for equal work' was not applicable as the appellants were 
not entitled to 'absorption' or 'classification' in terms of the Act and 
the Rules. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant inter alia contended that since 
B 
the respondents despite direction to produce documents including the 
offers of appointment, did not produce the same, an adverse inference C 
should have been drawn against them by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Respondent-Authority is a State within the meaning 
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, constitutionally D 
oblig~d to strictly comply with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 
thereof before making any appointment. The posts in which the 
Appellants were appointed, were not sanctioned ones. The conditions 
precedent for appointment of the officers and servants of the Authority, 
as contained in the Service Rules had not been complied with. The E 
appointments of the Appellants were, therefore, void ab initio being 
opposed to public policy as also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution of India. [253-A-B, 253-E-F-G] 
2. Appellants could not lay a valid claim for regularization of their 
services. Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. An F 
illegal appointment cannot be legalized by taking recourse to 
regularization. What can be regularized is an irregularity and not an 
illegality. The Constitutional Scheme which the country has adopted 
does not contemplate any backdoor appointment. A State before offering 
public service to a person must comply with the constitutional 
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. All actions of G 
the State must conform to the constitutional requirements. A daily 
wager in absence of a statutory provision in this behalf would not be 
entitled to regularization. [253-G-H; 254-A-B] 
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and Ors. v. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao and Ors., H 
244 
SUPR

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