LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus GANPATHI CHAYA NAIK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 807
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
v.
GANPATHI CHAYA NAIK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 795-798 of 2010)
JANUARY 22, 2010
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
A
B
Service law - Regularization/absorption - Daily wagers in
continuous service for more than ten years since the date of C
their appointment - Regularization of service - Claim of - Held:
Not sustainable since daily wagers were not recruited as per
the Recruitment Rules - Order of tribunal as upheld by High
Cowt directing the employer to consider in the cases of daily
wagers for regularization, set aside.
-0
Plea - New plea - Raising of - Before Supreme Court -
Permissibility of - Held: Not permissible.
Respondent-daily wagers claimed regularization of
service on the ground that they had been in continuous
E
service for more than ten years since their initial
appointment. Appellant-State contended that the
respondents had not been recruited as per the
Recruitment Rules and the scheme of regularization
pertained only to those persons who had been working
F
prior to 01.7.1984, whereas respondents were recruited
after the said date. Tribunal directed the appellants to
consider the cases of the respondents for regularization
of their service on merits. High Court upheld the same.
Hence the present appeals.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Merely because a temporary employee or
a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the
807
H
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 1 S.C.R.
A term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely
on the strength of such continuance, if the original
appointment was not made by following a due process
of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules the claims
B of the respondents for regularization or absorption
cannot be sustained. The orders passed by the High
Court as also the tribunal is set aside. [Para 6) [811-E-F]
2. The respondents did not argue about their rights
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at any stage till
C the hearing of the appeal before this Court. A faint
argument was sought to be made by their counsel which,
however, was not permitted to be raised as neither there
was any pleading in support of the same nor any
argument in the Courts below at any stage. Further, even
D a case of the said nature has not been pleaded before this
Court. Therefore, such a plea could not be raised before
this Court by the respondents. Therefore, in these
appeals the rights of the respondent under the said Act
E
F
G
H
is not adjudicated upon. [Para 8) [813-H; 814-A-B]
Union of India & Anr. v. Kartick Chandra Monda/ and Anr.
2010 (1) JT. 206; Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others
v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1; Official Liquidator
v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 sec 1 , relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2010 (1) JT. 206
(2006) 4 sec 1
(2008) 1 o sec 1
Relied on.
Relied on.
Relied on.
Para 6
Para 6
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 795-
798 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.1.2004 of the High
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. GANPATHI
809
CHAYA NAIK
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. Nos. 53790, 53804-
A
53806 of 2003.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 799-805, 806-810, 811-813, 814-817 & 818 of
2010.
B
Sanjay R. Hedge, A. Rohan Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla for the
Appellants.
R.S. Hegde (for P.P. Singh), Hari Shankar, Sudarshan
C
Singh Rawat, K. Saradai Devi, Rajesh Mahale for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave Granted in
D
all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The common question which arises for consideration in
all these appeals is whether the orders passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in different
E
Writ Petitions filed before it by the appellants herein dismissing
the said Writ Petitions and upholding the directions given by
the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore ("KAT' for
short") to the appellants to consider the cases of the
respondents for regularization of their service on merits are
sustainable.
F
3. The facts which are necessary to answer the aforesaid
question are being culled out here. The respondents in all these
appeals were working on daily wages either as plantation -.
watchmen or wireless operators or helpers. The respondents
G
in all these appeals claimed regularization of their service in
ligExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.