LexSATYANARAYAN SHARMA AND ORS. versus NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SATYANARAYAN SHARMA M'D ORS. v. NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ·-0 LTD. AND ORS. AUGUST 6, 1990 [L.M. SHARMA, J.S. VERMA AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.) Labour and Services: Daily-rated workmen-Principle of regu- ~"'!-- /arisation-When arises-'Equa/ pay for eq1<a/ work'-Doctrinl!- c Applicability of The petitioners, claiming to be daily-rated workmen of the respondent Corporation in a writ before the High Court demanded regularisation of their services and equal pay for equal work on the ground that they were discharging the same duties as the regular work- _..,.. D ers. Their claim was contested by the respondents on the ground that there was no work for them for a lopg time and they had been continued on rolls on humanitarian grounds. The High Court rejected their claim. In their counter affidavit to the special leave petition it was stated on behalf of the respondents that there was no vacancy in the establish- ment to absorb the petitioners, that they were surplus to the require- f: ment of the project and that it had propgsed a scheme of voluntary )...__. retirement for their benefit which some of them had accepted. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court, HELD: I. The principle of regularisation of a daily-rated work- men and payment to him of the pay equal to that of a regular workman F arises only when he is doing the same work as the regular workman and ........ there being a vacancy available for him, he is not absorbed against it or not even paid the equal pay for the period during which the same work "'- is taken from him. [620E-FJ 2. In the instant case, there were no vacancies or work available G in the establishment for absorption of the petitioners. The question of directing their absorption and regularisation, therefore, does not arise. However, they be given the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme and paid the specified amounts in addition to other dues. [619H; 620A; GI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition ,- - (Civil) No. 12317 of 1987. ' H From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1987 of the Madh~a 618 SATYANARAYAN v. N.M.D.C 619 -,,>-Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 3308of1985. M.K. Ramamurthy and A.K. Sanghi for the Petitioners. Vinod Bobde, P.S. Nair and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered This0p~tition for special leave is against the judgment dated 2. 9 .1987 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the petitioners' writ petition (M.P. No. 3308 of 1985). The petitioners demand regularisation of their services claiming to be daily-rated workmen for a long time in the mines of the Diamond Mining Project, Panna of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Their demands are of regularisation and "equal pay for equal work" on the ground that they are discharging the same duties as the regular workers. The man- agement has throughout denied the petitioners' claim and alleged that, in fact, the petitioners have been continued on rolls on humanitarian grou_nds for several years, even though there is no work for them; and as such, there is no question of regularising the petitioners and giving them the pay of regular workers when in fact they are not doing any work for a long time. The High Court rejected the petitioners' claim and came to the following conclusion: "The petitioners are not regular employees, they do not have any specific job to do, they are surplus to the establishment and merely kept on the roll on humanitarian ground. The respondents are also running in heavy losses during the last three years and it is not possible to absorb the petitioners immediately as regular workmen. In fact, the petitioners are being paid their daily wages in spite of their being no work available for them." A B c D E F Aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners have filed this petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the G Constitution. In response to notice of this petition, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 reiterating the stand taken before the High Court. It has been stated therein that there is no vacancy in the establishment to absorb the petitioners and the accumulated loss to H A B c D E F 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. the establishment as on 31st March, 1988 is Rs.10,29,40,583. A copy of the balance sheet has also been encl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.