UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS & ORS.
(Civil  Appeal No.3146 of 2019)
MARCH 15, 2019
  [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
 DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularisation of services of the casual paid
labourers – Claim for – Respondent Nos.1 & 2-Trade Unions filed
writ petition against the appellant-Union of India claiming a relief
for regularisation of the casual workers, who were working in a
project undertaken by Border Roads Organisation (BRO) for
construction of roads – Single Judge of the High Court allowed the
writ petition – Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision
of the Single Judge and issued further a writ of mandamus by
directing the appellant to frame a scheme to provide specific facilities
to the workers enumerated in the directions – On appeal, held:
High Court did not examine the case in the light of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Vartak
Labour Union (2) – High Court failed to see that it was not the
function of the courts to frame any scheme but it is sole prerogative
of the Government to do it –   Appellant has now framed a welfare
scheme for all such casual workers – Therefore, impugned order of
the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court
in the case of Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2) and then
examining the facts of the case at hand, this Court finds that the
facts of the case at hand and the one which were subject matter
in the case of Union of India are identical in all respects except
that name of the Trade Union of workers and place of working in
both the cases are different, which is hardly of any significance.
The High Court should have, therefore, examined the case in
 444
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 444
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of
India rather than to evolve its own separate scheme. The High
Court failed to see that it is not the function of the Courts to
frame any Scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the Government
to do it. [Paras 14, 15 and 16] [450-F-H]
2.  All that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary
power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct
the Government to consider for framing an appropriate Scheme
having regard to the facts and circumstances of any case which
this Court did in the case of  Union of India but not beyond it. It
is only in an exceptional case where the Court considers it proper
to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so but not
otherwise. [Para 17] [451-A-B]
3.  It is not in dispute that the appellant-Union of India has
now framed a welfare scheme for all such casual workers. The
salient features of the welfare scheme and the benefits which are
being extended to all such casual workers are set out in Para 14
(i) to (xii) of the petition. [Para 18] [451-B-C]
Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2) (2011) 4
SCC 200 : [2011] 4 SCR 509 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 4 SCR 509
    relied on
           Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3146
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2016 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 485 of 2015
Ajit K. Sinha, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Vyas, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Arvind
Kumar Sharma (for Mukesh Kumar Maroria), Advs.  for the Appellants.
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Ravindra S. Garia, Ms. Olivia B.,
Shashank Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
UNION OF INDIA  v. ALL INDIA TRADE
UNION CONGRESS .
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
05.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in S.A.
No.485 of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by
the appellants herein and issued directions to them in the nature of
mandamus by framing a scheme itself for its implementation to regularize
the services of the Casual Paid Labourers and granted them the benefits
similar to those of the regular employees under all the Labour Laws.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this
appeal, which involves a short point.
4. The appellants herein are the respondents and respondents
herein are the writ petitioners of the writ petition filed in the High Court
out of which 

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