Labour Laws – Appointment – Illegal practices – Management of a Government undertaking terminated 38 workmen on the ground that they, in connivance with a Personnel Manager and a Dealing Assistant, dishonestly secured appointments – Industrial Tribunal concluded that the Management failed to substantiate the charge of manipulated appointment – Concerned workmen were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages – Single Bench of High Court allowed writ petition in favour of the Management – LPA – Division Bench however decided in favour of the workmen – On appeal, held: The appointees did not figure in either of the lists, sponsored by the jurisdictional Employment Exchange and were beneficiaries of a fraudulent process – Moreover, the contradictory stand of the workmen at different stages would suggest that they were conscious and aware of being appointed through a non-bonafide process – In any case, the appointments were contrary to the requirements of the 1959 Act – Fraudulent practice to gain public employment cannot be countenanced to be permitted by a Court of law – The sanctity of public employment, as a measure of social welfare and a significant source of social mobility, must be protected against such fraudulent process which manipulates and corrupts the selection process – The Courts as sentinel of justice must strive to ensure that employment programmes are not manipulated by deceitful middlemen, thereby setting up a parallel mechanism of Faustian Bargain – One cannot condone false projections so as to circumvent the statutorily prescribed procedure for appointments – Such illegal practices must be interdicted by the Courts – Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The Single Judge of the High Court should not have been overruled by the impugned judgment by ignoring the key fact that the appointees did not figure in either of the lists, sponsored by the jurisdictional Employment Exchange and that they were beneficiaries of a fraudulent process. Enough materials were presented to the Tribunal to justify the action against the illegally appointed workmen, and as such the appellants cannot be made to suffer the consequence of the misconduct of their two errant employees against whom, disciplinary actions were taken by the Management. Moreover, the contradictory stand of the workmen at different stages would suggest that they were conscious and aware of being appointed through a non-bonafide process. In any case, the appointments were contrary to the requirements of the the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. [Para 14][83-H; 84-A-B]
2. Fraudulent practice to gain public employment cannot be countenanced to be permitted by a Court of law. The workmen here, having hoodwinked the Government Undertaking in a fraudulent manner, must be prevented from enjoying the fruits of their illgotten advantage. The sanctity of public employment, as a measure of social welfare and a significant source of social mobility, must be protected against such fraudulent process which manipulates and corrupts the selection process. Employment schemes floated by the State for targeted groups, can absorb a finite number of workmen. To abuse the legitimate process therefore would mean deprivation of employment benefits to rightful beneficiaries. The Courts as sentinel of justice must strive to ensure that such employment programmes are not manipulated by deceitful middlemen, thereby setting up a parallel mechanism of Faustian Bargain. Often, desperate job aspirants’ resort to such measures to compete for limited vacancies, but this Court cannot condone false projections so as to circumvent the statutorily prescribed procedure for appointments. Such illegal practices must be interdicted by the Courts. [Para 17][85-E-H; 86-A]
3. The reversal of the well-reasoned order of the Single Judge is found to be unjustified. The LPA judgment is set aside and the decision of the Single Judge is restored. [Para 18][86B]
Union of India v. M.Bhaskaran, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC
100 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 526 and Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balram Bahira & Ors., (2017) 8 SCC
670 : [2017] 11 SCR 271 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.