NAGAR MAHAPALIKA (NOW MUNICIPAL CORPN.) versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 681 · Decided: 02-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NAGAR MAHAPALIKA (NOW MUNICIPAL CORPN.) 
A 
v. 
STATEOFU.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
UP. Industrial Disputes Act-Section 6N-U.P. Nagar Mahapalika 
Adhyiniyam, 1959-Ad-hoc appointments of workmen made by Municipal 
Corporation-Sanction of posts by State made later for ad-hoc appointments C 
for a particular period-Termination of workmen on completion of the 
sanctioned period-labour Court directed reinstatement of workmen holding 
that the termination of workmen is violative of the provisions of the Act as 
they had worked, for more than 240 days continuousf;.~High Court, in Writ 
Petition, by an interim order, granted stay of the operation of the labour 
Court award subject to the condition of reinstatement of workmen till the D 
final disposal of the Pelition-High Courl final(v dismissed the Writ Petition 
on the ground that the workmen worked for more than 240 days and that 
they had been working for past so many years pursuant to its interim order-
Correclness of-Held, ad-hoc appointmenl of the workmen were made in 
violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam and hence the appointments are E 
void-Interim Order is subject to .final order after hearing on merits and 
hence dismissal of Writ Petition by the High Court without going into merits 
on the ground that they were working pursuant to the interim order is 
erroneous-Workmen cannot be directed to continue their services since the 
work for which the ad hoc appointments were made ceased to exist-Directions 
to pay compensation to workmen on termination in the interest of justice. 
F 
Appellant-Municipal Corporation, constituted and governed by U.P. 
Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 appointed respondents as apprentices on 
ad-hoc basis. Later, the State sanctioned some temporary posts for ad-hoc 
appointments for a particular period. The services of the respondents were 
terminated on the completion of the period. The respondents challenged the G 
justification and legality of their termination. On reference by the State, the 
Labour Court held that the termination of the respondents is violative of the 
. provisions of section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act since they had 
worked for more than 240 days and hence passed an award directing the 
681 
H 
682 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A appellant to reinstate the workmen in service. The appellant filed a Writ 
Petition before High Court challenging the award. The High Court, by an 
interim order, stayed the operation of the Labour Court award subject to the 
condition that respondents are reinstated and paid their full salary from the 
date of the award. The High Court finally dismissed the Writ Petition on the 
B ground that the workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service and 
that they had been working for past 14 years pursuant to the interim order 
by the High Court. 
c 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The officers of the local-self government, at their own whims 
and caprice, have made appointments without following the procedures laid 
down under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. The Administrator 
of Municipal of a Municipal Corporation, who is a public servant, was bound 
to follow the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules. The respondents could 
not be appointed even prior to creation of the temporary posts by the State. 
O The offers of appointment precede the order of sanction. The respondents, 
although purported to have been appointed as apprentices, were appointed as 
clerks on daily wages in Tax Assessment Department Evidently, the provisions 
of the Apprentice Act, 1961 have also not been followed. [687-D, E, Fl 
1.2. The High Court exercised its discretion in not granting an interim 
E relief in favour of the appellant. In view of the refusal on the part of the High 
Court to grant an interim relief as was prayed for by the appellant, the appellant 
implemented the award pending the appeal which can only be subject to appeal, 
that would not mean that the High Court would not or should not go into the 
merit of the matter. In fact, it is the duty of the High Court to consider the 
F Writ Petition on merits. The Respondents might have continued in service 
for more than 14 years only because the High Court did not pass any interim 
order, but the same, should not have formed the basis for making the interim 
order absolute or for non-consideration of the merit of the matter. 
[688-D, E

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