REGIONAL MANAGER, SBI. versus MAHATMA MISHRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 01-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
REGIONAL MANAGER, SBJ. 
v. 
MAHATMA MISHRA 
NOVEMBER I, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA Tm, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25H-Temporary appointment 
C for fixed period-Termination after 88 days-Correctness of-Held: 
Appointment of workman was as a casual worker for a f1Xed period..,.-Thus, 
termination not illegal though employer was to comply with the Department 
Circular provisions of 1959 Act and the doctrine of equality-Workman 
having worked only for 88 days not entitled to permanent status, and such 
D not to be reinstated with full back wages-Thus, order of courts below set 
aside-However, amount obtained by worker as idle wages not to be 
·refunded-Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) 
Act, 1959--Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 15. 
Appellant-Bank issued circular to the effect that temporary appointments 
E were to be made for a maximum period of 90 days in the case of sub-staff and 
180 days in case of temporary staff upon obtaining suitable number of names 
from employment exchange. Casual workers were to be engaged for work of 
casual nature only. 
Respondent was appointed on a temporary basis and his service were 
F terminated after 88 days. Industrial dispute was raised. Labour Court held 
the termination illegal and directed re-instatement with full back wages. In 
writ petition, Single Judge of High Court held that the respondent having 
worked only for a period of88 days was not entitled to a permanent status but 
since he had been paid idle wages for 20 years, it directed that reinstatement 
G to continue but without back wages. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. An employee after termination of his service cannot get a 
benefit to which he was not entitled to if he remained in service. It is one 
216 
.. 
REGIONAL MANAGER, SB!. v. MAHATMA MISHRA 
217 
thing to say that services of a workman was terminated in violation of A 
mandatory provisions of law but it is another thing to say that relief of 
reinstatement in service with full backwages would be granted automatically. 
Even in a case where service of an employee is terminated in violation of 
Section 25-F the Industrial Disputes Act, he would not be entitled to grant of 
a permanent status. Regularisation does not mean permanence. [222-F-HJ 
2.1. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appointment of the: 
respondent was made in violation of circular letter issued by the appellanti 
Bank. Requirements of law as envisaged under Employment Exchangesi 
I 
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and also not been complied: 
B 
with. Appellant being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the1 C 
Constitution, a constitutional duty was enjoined to it to comply with the doctrine 
of equality as enshrine under Articles 14 and 16 thereof. [220-D-E) 
2.2. Respondent was appointed only for 88 days. Thus, the requirements, 
of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not required to be 
complied with. The Labour Court although proceeded on the basis that section D 
25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act would be attracted, no reason has been 
assigned in support thereof. If the appointment of the respondent as a casual 
worker was for a fixed period and the termination of his services was in terms 
of contract of employment, section 25-H would not have any application. The 
Labour Court failed to show as to how the appellant can be said to have taken 
recourse to unfair labour practice. It committed a serious illegality in 
proceeding on the basis that retrenchment was illegal. (220-B-C-F; 222-D] 
E 
2.3. High Court rightly observed the respondent was not entitled to a 
permanent status. If he was not entitled to conferment of any permanent status 
having worked only for 88 days, he was not entitled to be reinstated in service F 
and that too with full back wages. High Court failed to consider a vital aspect 
of the matter. Reinstatement in service can be directed provided the 
termination is illegal. No finding of fact has been arrived at that the 
termination of the service to the respondent was illegal. The question of 
directing an award reinstating him in service did not and could not arise. 
High Court committed a serious error in passing an order only on the basis G 
of sympathy although it was held that the respondent was not entitled to any 
relief. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set asi

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