STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. versus PRANTIYA SINCHAI AVAM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK MAHAPARISHAD

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

> 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
PRANTIYA SINCHAI AV AM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK 
MAHAPARISHAD 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
-1, 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.] 
' 
Labour Laws: 
c 
Regularization-Daily wagers working/or more than six years~ 
Had completed 240 days in each calendar year-Claim for 
regularization-Allowed by Labour Court-Order upheld by High 
Court-On appeal, held: Before any direction for regularization can 
be given, factual position has to be noted as to whether there was any D 
sanctioned post-Such factual details not discussed by either Labour 
>---
Court or High Court-Matter remitted back to Labour Court to 
,..,. 
consider the factual background and to decide the matter afresh. 
The 14 workmen in question were working on daily wages for 
more than six years and had completed 240 days in each calendar E 
year. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present 
appeal is whether they ought to be regularized. 
--1 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
-+ 
HELD: 1. There is no question of any automatic regularization. 
The words 'regular' or 'regularization' do not connote permanence 
and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of 
tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any G 
procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects 
t 
as are attributable to methodology followed in making the 
appointments. Further, when rules framed under Article 309 of the 
Constitution are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise 
187 
H 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 thereof 
in contravention of the rules. Only something that is irregular for 
want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of 
selection which does not go to the root of the. process, can be 
regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting 
B permanence of employment is totally different and cannot be equated 
with regularization. [Paras 8 and 9] [190-F-H; 191-A-B] 
c 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors., 
(2006] 4 SCC 1 and B.N Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & 
Ors., (1979] 4 5CC 507, relied on. 
2. The completion of 240 days' work does not confer the right 
to regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely 
imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of 
termination of the sen-ice. Only because a person had been working 
D for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be 
regularized in sen-ice. [Para 10] [191-C-D] 
Madhyamik Shiksa Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra & Ors., 
[2005] 5 SCC 122; MP. Housing Board and Anr. v. Afonoj Srivastava, 
[2006] 2 SCC 702; Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., [2007) 1 SCC 
E 533; Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian 
Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2007] 1 SCC 408 and Hindustan 
Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors., (2007] 6 SCC 207, 
relied on. 
F 
3. It is not in dispute that some of the concerned workmen have 
been regularized. Before any direction for regularization can be 
given, the factual position has to be noted as to whether there was 
any sanctioned post. Apparently, in the present case, these factual 
details have not been discussed by either the Labour Court or the 
G High Court. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to 
consider the factual background and-to decide the matter afresh in 
the light of what has been stated in Uma Devi's case and Hindustan 
Aeronautics' case. [Para 12] [192-C-D] 
Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors., 
H [2006] 4 SCC 1 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh 
f-
/ 
~ 
-; 
t 
STATE v. PRANTIYASINCHAI AV AMBANDH YOGANA 189 
SHRAMIKMAHAP ARISHAD [PASA YAT, J.] 
and Ors., (2007] 6 SCC 207, relied on. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4856 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 10.8.2005 of the High 
Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 4894 of2001 (M/ B 
S). 
P.N. Gupta for the Appellants. 
Bharat Sangal, Samyadip Chatterji and A. Ramakrishnan for the 
Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY;\T, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single D 
Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the writ petition filed1 by 
the appellants. 
3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:-
On the basis of a dispute raise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.