THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC AND ORS. versus P. LAKSHMOJI RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 22-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
r > 
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
P. LAKSHMOJI RAO AND ORS. 
JANUARY 22, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABUAND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
B 
j. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Section 25B-Regular appointment and seniority-Effective date-State c 
Road transport selecting conductors and appointing them on daily wages-
Subsequently, regularizing them-Their seniority to be counted from the date 
of regularization-Claim for regularization from date of initial appointment-
High .Court granting relief subject· to a condition that employee must have 
completed one year of continuous service as defined in section 25B-
Sustainability of-Held: Not sustainable as wrong criterion based on Section D 
258 applied-The employees approached the Court under Article 226 of the 
't 
Constitution long after their regularization-Services regularized within a 
\ 
reasonable time-No rule cited to claim regularization from the date of their 
initial appointment as daily wage employees-Employer failed to challenge 
the decision in time and allowed it to become final-Relief granted by High 
E 
Court moulded-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226. 
Appellant-Corporation issued advertisement for appointment for the 
.. 
post of Conductors. Respondents were selected as conductors and 
appointed on daily wages initially for a certain period of time. Thereafter, 
they were regularized after a year or two. They were placed on time scale F 
J. 
of pay and their seniority was counted from the date of regularization. 
~ 
After nationalization of routes, certain persons employed by private bus 
operators were absorbed into Corporation service and were shown as 
seniors to the respondents in the seniority list. Respondents then filed writ 
petitions seeking regularization from the date of their initial appointment 
on daily wage basis and service benefits. High Court allowed the writ G 
petitions subject to the condition that they should have completed one year 
< 
of continuous service as defined in Section 258 of the Industrial Disputes 
') 
Act. Appellants filed an appeal. Division Bench of High Court dismissed 
the same. Hence the present appeal. 
929 
H 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of lhe appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The law laid down or the directions given in various writ 
petitions/writ appeals are not legally sustainable as wrong criterion based 
on Section 258 of Industrial Disputes Act was applied in case after case; 
B that the respondents and other similarly situated employees approached 
th.e-Court under Artitle 226 long after their regularization, thereby 
upsetting the settled position; and that on the facts it is evident that the 
services of the employees who were recruited as Conductors were 
regularized within a reasonable time, therefore, they were treated fairly. 
Furthermore, the respondents could not point out any service rule or 
C regulation or any other principle of law into service to claim regularization 
from an anterior date i.e. right from the date of their initial appointment 
as daily wage employees. [938-B-CI 
1.2. In the normal course, the judgments under appeal should have 
been set aside and writ petitions be dismissed. However, the fact that the 
D appellants failed to question the adverse decisions by filing appeals at the 
appropriate time and that they allowed many judgments to become final 
though they related to employees of the same Region/Division, come in 
the way of these appeals being allowed in toto. [938-D-Ef 
E 
1.3. In view of the peculiar situation and in order to avoid the 
anomalies that might otherwise ensue, while holding that the respondent-
employees have failed to establish their legal right to get the status of 
regular employees right from the date of their initial appointment on daily 
wage basis and the respective dates of regularization ~ssigned to the 
respondents cannot be legally faulted, the relief is moulded in modification 
F llf the directions given in the judgments under appeal that if any of the 
Conductors, junior to the respondents in the relevant seniority list of the 
concerned Division/Region, have got the benefit of seniority and 
regularization or are entitled to get the same by virtue of the judgments 
that have become final, then the respondents who are seniors to them, shall 
G be given the same benefit on the same principle. [938-G-H; 939-A-Bf 
APSRTCv. P. T Rao, (1998) 2 ALT 447 and State of Ha1ya11a v. Piara 
Singh [1992[ 4

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