Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
Termination of service – Without holding inquiry – Propriety of – Regularization of daily wager – Thereafter the regularization was annulled and the service of the employee was terminated – Termination order challenged – Labour Court upheld the order of termination – In writ petition, Single Judge High Court set aside the order passed by Labour Court holding that before terminating the service of permanent employee, authority should have conducted an enquiry – Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single Judge in LPA – On appeal, held: Service rendered in pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of a valid and lawful appointment – The employee had secured regularization on the basis of interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for regularization – Such an appointment is void ab initio and termination thereof does not require disciplinary proceedings – Termination was justified – Labour Laws.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. If the initial appointment itself is void, then the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable for terminating the services of such workman. [Para 5.5][873-D-E]
Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2013)
9 SCC 363 : [2013] 8 SCR 471; Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation & Anr. v. Intejam Ali Zafri (2006) 6 SCC 275 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 533 ; Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar (2005) 7 SCC 690 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 170 – relied on
2. Service rendered in pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of a valid and lawful appointment or promotion. The illegality of such an appointment goes to the root of the respondent’s absorption as a regular employee. The respondent could not be considered to be an “employee”, and would not be entitled to any benefits under the Regulations applicable to employees of the appellant-Authority. [Paras 6.1 and 6.2][874-B-D]
Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 345 : [2009] 15 SCR 1133 – relied on.
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576 – held inapplicable.
3. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any other disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since the respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the appellantAuthority, and did not hold a civil post under the State Government. He was merely a daily wager on the muster rolls of the appellant-Authority. [Para 7][874-E-F] The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kirti Narayan Prasad 2018
(15) SCALE 352 ; Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu (2007) 2 SCC 335: [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 1094 – relied on.
4. The respondent had sought to secure regularization on the basis of interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for regularization. Such an appointment would be illegal and void ab initio, and cannot be sustained. The appellantAuthority rightly terminated the respondent vide Order dated 22.05.2003. [Para 9][875-A-C]
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.