LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. versus RAVINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 5 S.C.R. 579 '-i· STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. A v. RAVINDER SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 2224 of 2008) MARCH 28, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Labour Laws: Regularisation - Daily-wager - Seeking regularization as Clerk - Employer offering regularisation as 'Chowkidar' - c Offer refused by worker - Termination - Industrial dispute - Tribunal upheld termination - High Court directing regularisation as Clerk - Challenge to - Held: Worker concerned was not selected in the manner as applicable to regular employees - He was a mere back-door entrant - D Hence, directions given by High Court for regularization in the _ ..... post of Clerk set aside - However, time granted to worker to accept offer for regularisation as 'Chowkidar'. Respondent had been appointed on daily-wage E basis in the State Horticulture Department. He sought regularization as Clerk. Appellants offered Respondent regularisation as 'Chowkidar' which he refused. Thereafter · the engagement of Respondent as daily wager was terminated. Industrial dispute was raised. The stand of the State was that the Respondent was engaged as daily-paid F .. labourer for carrying out horticulture operations such as ,.:,;_ spraying of plants, cleaning the floors etc. and therefore, the question of discharging the duties of clerk/supervision did not arise .. Tribunal upheld the termination. High Court directed regularisation of Respondent as Clerk under a G Government scheme.. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court I . '"r HELD: The High Court proceeded on erroneous 579 H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A premises. The Labour Court had rightly dismissed the -·...-~ claim of the Respondent by holding that he and others, being daily wagers, cannot be treated at par with the regular employees. It also noted that the conditions for regularization under the policy of the Government have B not been noticed. In addition, the Labour Court had observed that the name of the Respondent was not + sponsored by the employment exchange; there was no appointment order; the requirements relating to procedure to be followed at the time of recruitment were c also not fulfilled. There was a mere back-door entry. It was further noted that they were not selected in the manner as applicable to regular employees who are liable to be transferred and are subject to disciplinary proceedings to which daily-rated workers are not subjected to. In the D background of what has been stated above, the directions given for regularization in the post of clerk being indefensible are set aside. However, the appellants had ..I-. regularized the services of the respondent as a 'Chowkidar' in July, 1997 which the respondent had refused. If the respondent is so advised, he may accept the order in that E regard by submitting the req~isite documents within six weeks from today. If not so done, the respondent shall not be entitled to any relief in terms of the High Court's impugned order which has been set aside by this Court. [Paras 7,8, 9] [582-E, F, G; 587-C, D, ~. F, G] F Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 sec 1 - referred to. _.. . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2224 of 2008. G From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2005 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 354 of 2000. ' Naresh K. Sharma and J.S. Attri for the Appellants. T H S.C. Rana and Balraj Dewan for the Respondent. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. v. 581 RAVINDER SINGH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by which two Writ Petitions filed by the respondent were disposed of. The B controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 3. The present dispute relates to Civil Writ Petition No.354 of 2000. Before dealing with the rival contentions the factual background needs to be noted. · Respondent was appointed on 3.9.1980 as a daily-rated · c worker in the Horticulture Department of the State. In the Writ Petition the prayer was for regularization as a clerk on completion of ten years of service on daily wages basis. It is to be noted that the union of the ernployees had moved the Labour D Court for regularization of all daily
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.