STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. versus LAUT KUMAR VERMA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 24-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
LAUT KUMAR VERMA 
NOVEMBER 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: 
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960: 
c 
Standard Standing Order-Clause 2-Dai/y wager-Termination of 
services-Claim for regularization and for classification as permanent clerk-
Allowed by Labour Court and High Court-Held, workman having not been 
appointed in terms of statutory rules, nor against a clear vacancy, Labour 
Court and High Court were not correct in directing regularization-Industrial D 
Disputes Act, 1947-s.25-F-Constitution of India-Article 16. 
Constitution of India, 150: 
Article 136-Special Leave Petition-Condonation of delay-
Meanwhile Award of Labour Court in favour of workman implemented-
Held, decision to implement the award was subject to decision in SLP-Delay E 
condoned-Appeal of State a/lowed-Workman to be paid compensation and 
costs for condoning the massive delay in filing SLP. 
Words and Phases: 
'Irregular appointment' and 'illegal appointment'-Distinction F 
between-Explained 
Respondent was engaged on daily wages. On his application, the Labour 
Court made an award holding that having worked continuously for a period of 
more than six months he acquired the right for classification in the category 
of permanent clerk, and, as such, his services could not have been terminated G 
without complying with the provisions of S.25-F of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947. A direction was issued to the employer to classify the worker on 
permanent basis from two years prior to the date of filing his application, and 
to regularize his service with consequential benefits. The employer-State after 
591 
II 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A unsuccessfully challenging the award before the High Court, filed the present 
appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that under the provisions of the 
Madhya Pnl,desh Industrial Relations act, 1960, and clause 2 of the Standard 
Standing 0 rders the respondent was not entitled to be classified as a 
B permanent employee. For the respondent, on the or other hand, it was 
contended thmt the special leave petition being barred by limitation, the delay 
in filing the sa•me should not be condoned. lt was also pointed out that the 
award of the La,bour court had been implemented by classifying the respondent 
as permanent. 
c 
Allowing tb.e appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A workman would be entitled to classification of permanent 
or temporary employee, if th~ conditions precedent therefor are satisfied. The 
respondent was not a1npointed in terms of statutory rules, nor was he appointed 
D against a clear vacanc,Y. He was not appointed on a permanent post or placed 
on probation. He was i.'lso not given a ticket of permanent employee. He was 
furthermore not entitkd to any regular scale of pay attached to any post. 
Working on daily wage's alone would not entitle him to the status of a 
permanent employee. The Labour Court, Industrial tribunal as also the High 
Court were not correct in dfrecting regularization of sen•ice of the respondent. 
E 
(595-F; 597-C-D; 600-FI 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., 12006) 4 
SCC I, followed. 
MP. Housing Board & Anr. v. Mano} Shrivastava, 120061 2 SCC 702; 
F Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar, (20061 5 SCC 173; and 
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Workman, Indian Drugs and 
Pharmaceuticals Limited, Civil App1eal No. 4996 of 2006 decided by SC on 
16.11.2006, relied on. 
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors., 
G (2006) 9 SCALE 73: 12006) 8 sec 67' dted. 
2. The distinction between the two terms i.e. 'irregular appointment' 
and 'illegal appointment' is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in 
total disregard of the constitutional sciheme as also the recruitment rules 
H framed by the employer, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of 
STA TE OF M.P. v. LALIT KUMAR VERMA 
593 
the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas A 
. there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance of the 
constitutional scheme as also the rules has been made, the appointment may 
be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have 
been strictly adhered to. [598-F-G) 
National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 493; R.S. Garg B 
v. State of UP. & Ors., (2006) 7 SCALE 405; State of Gujarat & Anr. v. 
Karshanbhai K. Rabari & Ors., [200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.