STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus DEVI DUTT AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 24-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
DEVI DUTT AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, 2006 
B 
(S.B. SINHA ANDMARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Findings of fact recorded by Labour Court-Judicial 
C review of-legal principles-Reiterated-On facts, no interference called 
for-Further, High Court ought not to have entertained additional affidavit 
without assigning cogent reason therefor-Practice and Procedure-Labour 
law. 
D 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
ss. 25-F and 25-G-Daily wagers-Discontinuation of services-Labour 
Court holding that workmen were not in continuous service for 240 days for 
E a period of I 2 months preceding the order of termination-Provisions of ss. 
25-F and 25-G, not infringed-High Court in writ petition setting aside the 
award-Held, High Court should not have interfered with the findings of fact 
arrived at by Labour Court-Order of High Court set aside-Constitution of 
India-Article 226. 
F 
The appellant-State Government, in terms of a judgment of the High 
Court* laid down terms and conditions for regularization of daily wagers, as 
a result whereof services of the respondents were discontinued. On the 
industrial disputes being raised, the Labour Court held that the workmen 
having not been in continuous service for a period of240 days during a period 
of 12 months preceding the order of termination, provisions of ss.25-F and 
G 25-G were not infringed. Writ petitions were filed by the respondent before 
the High Court wherein additional affidavits were also filed. The High Court 
held that the appellants having not disputed that the workmen were engaged 
on daily wages from February 1993 to January 1996, the impugned awards 
could not be sustained; and directed the matter to be remitted to the Labour 
H 
514 
·; 
STATEOFHARYANA v. DEVIDUTT[S.B. SINHA,J.] 
515 
Court. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court erred in passing the impugned judgments 
and exceeded its jurisdiction. It failed to apply the well known legal principles 
A 
of judicial review. Before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, evidences were B 
adduced by the parties on the basis whereof the Labour Court, arrived at a 
definite conclusion that the respondents had not been in continuous service 
for a period of240 days within 12 months preceding the date of termination 
and were disengaged keeping in view the exigency of work. It was found as of 
fact that no junior had been retained. Furthermore, the appellants acted bona C 
fide in terms of the directions issued by the High Court*. The orders of 
termination were passed in terms of the policy decision. The High C<;mrt 
ordinarily, without appreciating as to whether on the well known legal 
principles of judicial review, the findings of labour court require interference, 
should not have interfered with the said findings of fact. 
*Kulbhushan v. State of Haryana, (1996) 1 RSJ 775, referred to. 
2. The High Court also ought not to have entertained an additional 
affidavit without assigning any sufficient or cogent reason therefor. The 
·parties adduced their evidences before the Industrial Court. Why could they 
D 
not bring on record any other evidence before the Labour Court, was not E 
explained. The contentions raised before the High Court for the first time in 
the additional affidavits filed before it, were also not admitted by the appellants 
herein. Therefore, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are set 
aside. [517-E-F; 518-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5184 of2006. 
f 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2004 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos. 6135,6137 and 6136/2002. 
Ajay Siwach and T.V. George for the Appellants. 
Harish Chandra and Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B; SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
G 
H 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents herein were recruited on daily wages. They were muster-
roll employees. Pursuant to a decision of the High Court in Kulbhushan v. 
State of Haryana [1996) I RSJ 775, engagement of daily wagers was purported 
to have been banned in terms whereof the State issued instructions ·on 
9.1.1996 to all the heads of departments, forbidding continuance of daily 
wagers on muster-roll. The work was directed to be carried out by workmen, 
B whose servicef. were to be regularised on fulfilment

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