U .P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus BIJLI MAZDOOR SANGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 17-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U .P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
t 
• 
v. 
BIJLI MAZDOOR SANGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 17, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, 11.] 
Labour Laws: 
~ . 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
c 
Section 25-F-Terminaton of service of daily wagers-Claim for 
reinstatement and regularization-Industrial Tribunal holding termination 
as violative of s.25-F of the Act and s.6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, and directing reinstatement and regularization of workmen-Held, 
D 
concept of regularization is clearly linked with Article 14 of the Constitution-
However, if in a case fact situation is covered as stated in para 45 in Uma 
Devi's case* industrial adjudicator can modifY the relief. but that does not 
dilute observations made in said case about regularization-On/acts, direction 
for regularization could not have been given in view of Uma Devi's case* -
"' 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6-N-Constitution of India, 1950-
... 
E Article I4. 
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were engaged by the appellant Corporation as 
Chowkidars on daily wage basis on 1.6.1977. Since the construction work 
was over, their services were terminated by an order dated 17.1.1979. This 
gave rise to Adjudication Case No.168of1980 before the Industrial Tribunal, 
F which opined that the termination was improper, as the workmen had completed 
240 days of service and their retrenchment was violative of s.25-F of the 
,..._ __ 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 and they were entitled to be reinstated; and, ultimately, held that 
respondent nos.2 and 3, after three years of their joining the service, were 
G deemed to have been regularized. The writ petition of the appellant Corporation 
against the decision of the Tribunal having been dismissed by the High Court, 
~ 
it filed the present appeal. 
A._- . 
It was contended for the appellant that in view of the decision of the 
.. 
Secretary, State of Karna/aka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., [2006] 3 SCR 953. 
H 
256 
> 
U.P. POWER CORPRN. LTD. v. BIJLI MAZDOOR SANGH 
257 
Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case*, the direction for regularization could A 
not have been given. For the respondents, it was contended that in Uma Devi's 
case powers of industrial adjudication were not under consideration. It was 
submitted that the Labour Court, in order to maintain industrial peace, could 
vary the terms of the contract. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is true that the question as regards the effect of the 
Industrial Adjudicators' powers was not directly in issue in Uma Devi's case*, 
B 
but the foundational logic in the said case is based on Article 14 of the 
Constitution of India. Though the Industrial Adjudica~or can vary the terms C 
of the contract of the employment, he cannot do something which is violative 
of Article 14. If the case is one which is covered by the concept of 
regularization, same cannot be viewed differently. [Para 6) [260-C-D] 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., [2006) 3 SCR 
953 [200614 sec 1, explained and relied on. 
D 
1.2. There cannot be a case for regularization without there being 
employee-employer relationship. The concept of regularization is clearly 
linked with Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if in a case the fact 
situation is covered by what is stated in para 45 of the Uma Devi's case*, the 
industrial adjudicator can modify the relief, but that does not dilute the E 
observations made by this Court in the said case about the regularization. 
[Para 7) (260-E-F) 
1.3. Looked at from any angle, the direction for regularization, as given, 
could not have been given in view of what has been stated in Uma Devi's* case. 
[260-G[ (Para 8) F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2541 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2003 of the High Court of 
Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No. 4324 of 1991. 
S. Borathakur, Aneesh Mittal and Sunil Kumar Jain for the Appellants. 
Bharat Sangal, R.R. Kumar, Samyadip Chatterji and Suchita Sharma for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the 
writ petition filed by the appellants. Challenge in the writ petition was to the 
Award made by the Industrial Tribunal,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.