MANAGEMENT, THE ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER versus SECRETARY, CENTRAL SALT MAZDOOR UNION

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 1056 
. ~-_/ 
A 
MANAGEMENT, THE ASSISTANT $ALT COMMISSIONER 
v. 
B 
SECRETARY, CENTRAL ·SALT MAZDOOR UNION 
(Civil Appeal No. 1324 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
(S.B. S.INHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Labour Laws: Industrial dispute - By daily wagers working 
for more than a decade :- Against department of Central 
c Government - Seeking regularization of seNice - Stand of 
department that it was not the employee as appointment was 
on behalf of the licencees undertaking the work - On appeal, 
held: Relationship of employer and employee established-
But employees cannot /;Je regularized against a non-existent 
D · post - Recruitment was' made without compliance of Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution and beyond the scope of statutory , 
rules -The employees, however, were entitled to minimum 
wages - In the peculiar facts of the case, direction to confer all 
benefits given to similarly situated retired employees and in 
E absence thereof to pay compensation - Central Excise Rules, 
1944 - rr. 121, 129 and 130 - Central Excise and Salt Act, 
1944 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, 177 and 
309. 
. 
Jurisdiction -
Industrial dispute against Central 
F Government Department- Jurisdiction of Labour Court- Held: 
After enactment of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, labour 
...... -court had no jurisdiction to decide such question' - But such 
plefJ cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before 
Supreme Court - Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Plea .:... 
G' Practice and Procedure. 
The respondents raised an industrial dispute. They 
stated that they had been appointed by the appellant and 
·--< 
had been working as 'platform. mazdoor:' "lor a period 
ranging from 10 to 30 years and as they had completed 
H 
1056 
' ·i 
• 
MGMT., THE ASSISTANT SALT COMMNR. v. SECRETARY, 
10~7 
CENTRAL SALT MAZDOOR UNION 
more than 240 days work in a year, they should be A 
regularized. Stand of the appellant was that they were 
engaged on daily wages on behalf of the salt licensees 
as per Rules 121, 129 and 130 of Central Excise Rules, 
19.44 and the amount of wages paid to them used to be 
recover.ed from licensees. Labour Court held that the. B 
respondents were the employees of the appellant, as the 
respondents are directly working under the appellant; that 
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them and 
housing and earned leave facilities were given to them. 
Writ petition as well as writ appeal were decided in favour c 
of the respondents. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Matter pertaining to grant of licence and 
terms and conditions therefore are governed by a statute~ 0 
Rule 129 of Central Excise Rules imposes an obligation 
on the licensee, inter alia, to maintain the salt platform~ 
Only in the event, the same is not properly maintained, 
the appellant can take over the work for such period as it 
may deem fit and proper. No statutory provision has been 
placed to show that the appellant had the jurisdiction in a E 
case of the present nature, namely, to supervise salt, 
platforms and drying grounds for a large number of 
licensees together and charge a special cess therefor. It 
is not known as to whether such an arrangement was 
made with an approval o_f the Comm.issioner of Salt. Being 
F 
cretatures of the statute, they were required to act within, 
the four corners thereof and not de hors the same. All 
activities of the authorities of the Central Government 
must have a statutory backing and the impugned action ' 
is beyond the scope thereof. Thus the appellant has G 
exceeded its jurisdiction in arriving at the aforementioned . 
arrangements. Neither the Central Excise and Salt Act, 
1944 nor the Rules framed thereunder empower the 
Assistant Salt Commissioner to take such a step. [Paras ' · 
10,11 and 12, 14] [1064-F, G; 1065-A, B,·c, D, E] 
H 
~ 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. 
:\.(' -
(2006) 4 sec 1) - followed. 
1.2. It was expected that at least some evidence wo_uld 
I 
)'.-
be brought before the Labour Court to show that the 
B 
licensees and the Department have entered into a mutual 
arrangement . But no such evidence was adduced. 
[Para 14] [1065-E-F] 
1.3. Evidently, there is no sanctioned post. Before 
making appointment of the respondents, the provisions 
c of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have not 
been complied 

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