PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus KARAMJIT SINGH

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 15-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
KARAMJIT SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 3925  of  2019)
APRIL 15, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
Termination of service – Without holding inquiry – Propriety
of  –  Regularization of daily wager – Thereafter the regularization
was annulled and the service of the employee was terminated –
Termination order challenged –  Labour Court upheld the order of
termination – In writ petition, Single Judge High Court set aside
the order passed by Labour Court holding that before terminating
the service of permanent employee, authority should have conducted
an enquiry – Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of
Single Judge in LPA – On appeal, held: Service rendered in
pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated
to service rendered in pursuance of a valid and lawful appointment
– The employee had secured regularization on the basis of
interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for
regularization – Such an appointment is void ab initio and
termination thereof does not require disciplinary proceedings –
Termination was justified – Labour Laws.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An order of regularization obtained by
misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent
authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. If the initial
appointment itself is void, then the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable for terminating the services
of such workman. [Para 5.5][873-D-E]
Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2013)
9 SCC 363 : [2013] 8 SCR 471; Rajasthan Tourism
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 864
864
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
865
Development Corporation & Anr. v. Intejam Ali Zafri
(2006) 6 SCC 275 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 533 ; Bank
of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar (2005) 7 SCC 690 :
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 170 –  relied on
2. Service rendered in pursuance of an illegal appointment
or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance
of a valid and lawful appointment or promotion. The illegality of
such an appointment goes to the root of the respondent’s
absorption as a regular employee. The respondent could not be
considered to be an “employee”, and would not be entitled to
any benefits under the Regulations applicable to employees of
the appellant-Authority. [Paras 6.1 and 6.2][874-B-D]
Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin
Bank & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 345 : [2009] 15 SCR 1133
– relied on.
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v.
B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727 : [1993] 2
Suppl. SCR 576 –  held inapplicable.
3. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as
envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any
other disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since
the respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the appellant-
Authority, and did not hold a civil post under the State
Government. He was merely a daily wager on the muster rolls of
the appellant-Authority. [Para 7][874-E-F]
The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kirti Narayan Prasad 2018
(15) SCALE 352 ; Superintendent of Post Offices &
Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu (2007) 2 SCC 335: [2006] 10
 Suppl. SCR 1094 – relied on.
4. The respondent had sought to secure regularization on
the basis of interpolation in the final list of employees
recommended for regularization. Such an appointment would be
illegal and void ab initio, and cannot be sustained. The appellant-
Authority rightly terminated the respondent vide Order dated
22.05.2003. [Para 9][875-A-C]
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY v. KARAMJIT SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576
held inapplicable
Para 4.2
[2013] 8  SCR 471
relied on
Para 5.5
[2006] 3  Suppl. SCR 533
relied on
Para 5.5
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 170
relied on
Para 5.5
[2009] 15 SCR 1133
relied on
Para 6.1
2018 (15) SCALE 352
relied on
Para 7
[2006] 10  Suppl. SCR1094
relied on
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3925
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  09.07.2018 of the High
Court of  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 894 of 2018.
Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, K. Vaijayanthi, Shailabh Pandey,
Ms. Prerana Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. or the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
1. The present Civil A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.