LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. ETC. versus VIJA Y KUMAR UPADHYA Y AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 17-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT 
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
VIJA Y KUMAR UPADHYA Y AND ANR. ETC. 
JANUARY 17, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Regularisation of Service-Employees getting benefit of the order of C 
High Court as confirmed by the Supreme Cowt-Some employees senior to 
those who got the benefit-High Court giving the benefit to them also-Held, 
valid-In case of any difficulty to convene tripartite meeting consisting of 
workers' Union, one of the officers of Labour Department and an Officer of 
the appellant-Corporation to thrash out problems and anive at an amicable 
settlement. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 450 of 
1997 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.92 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 428 of 1991. 
E 
Vijay Hansaria and R.B. Misra for the Appellants. 
Raju Ramachandran, Sunil Gupta, H.K. Puri, Joseph Pookatt, Ms. S. 
Ramachandran and R.S. Jena for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
.Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
Admittedly, the respondents came to be appointed on ad hoc basis G 
pursuant to writ petition filed earlier by many others. The High Court by 
its judgment dated 4.2.1991 in Writ Petition No. 29537/90 had allowed the 
writ petition and set aside the order of the retrenchment and directed 
regularisation of their services. Some of the respondents, admittedly, are 
senior to those who had the benefit of the order of regularisation as H 
369 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
confirmed by this Court as on May 10, 1991. Consequently, following the 
earlier judgment, the High Court in the impugned order allowed the writ 
petitions with similar directions .. Thus, these appeals by special leave have 
been filed. 
In view of the fact that the earlier orders of this Court have become 
B final, the respondent are entitled to regularisation of their services. The 
learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice that since 
~ ~ 
subsequently there was a development after the orders passed by th.is 
Court, namely, some of the establishments have been handed to the private 
sector and some of them are in the process of being wound up, the orders 
C passed earlier by theΒ· High Court as confirmed by this Comt and the 
present order would cause hardship to the appellant- Corporation. We do 
not think that we can go into that aspect of the matter particularly, when 
the order in favour of some of the employees has attained finality. Similarly 
the respondents are entitled to the same benefit. 
D 
However, if there is any difficulty in working out, it will be open to 
the Corporation to convene a tri partite meeting consisting of workers' 
Union, one of the officers of Labour Department and an officer of the 
appellant-Corporation to thrash out the problems and arrive at an amicable 
. settlement to diffuse and sort out the above difficulty. 
E 
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. In view of the above direc-
tions,. the direction for contempt issued by the High Court may not be 
enforced. However, the appellant-Corporation shall regularise their service 
and it will be subject to the suggestions made hereinbefore. No costs. 
G.N. 
Appeals are dismissed. 
Β· .