9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Regularization of casual daily-rated employees. 2. Payment of wages equivalent to regular employees. 3. Continuation of service until superannuation. 4. Financial condition and viability of the appellant company. 5. Judicial restraint and separation of powers. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Regularization of Casual Daily-rated Employees: The Labour Court had directed the regularization of ten casual daily-rated employees, which was challenged by the appellant. The High Court upheld the appellant's contention, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. vs. Anil Kumar Mishra & Ors., which stated that completing 240 days of service does not entitle an employee to regularization. The Supreme Court reiterated that temporary employees have no right to regularization as regularization is not a mode of recruitment. The decision in A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. was referred to, emphasizing that regularization cannot be granted if appointments were made without following proper rules and procedures. 2. Payment of Wages Equivalent to Regular Employees: The High Court had directed that the casual daily-rated employees be paid wages equivalent to regular employees. The Supreme Court disagreed, referencing State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj, which held that daily wage employees cannot claim the same salary as regular employees. The Court emphasized that temporary employees do not have the same rights as permanent employees, including the right to equal pay. 3. Continuation of Service Until Superannuation: The High Court had directed that the casual daily-rated employees be continued in service until their superannuation. The Supreme Court found this direction erroneous, stating that temporary employees have no right to the post and hence cannot be continued until superannuation. The Court cited Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & others, which held that courts should not issue directions for the continuation of temporary employees as it violates the constitutional scheme of public employment. 4. Financial Condition and Viability of the Appellant Company: The appellant company was a sick unit under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) with severe financial constraints. The Supreme Court noted that the company's financial position was critical, with accumulated losses and a drastic reduction in manpower. The Court held that imposing additional financial burdens by regularizing temporary employees or paying them regular wages was unjustified and counterproductive, especially when the company was already struggling for survival. 5. Judicial Restraint and Separation of Powers: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and the separation of powers, stating that courts should not encroach upon executive or legislative functions. The Court noted that decisions related to the creation of posts, appointments, regularization, and pay scales are executive functions. It criticized the tendency of courts to issue directions based on humanitarian considerations without adhering to legal principles, which can undermine the constitutional scheme of public employment. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Labour Court and the High Court. It held that the casual daily-rated employees had no right to regularization, continuation in service until superannuation, or payment of wages equivalent to regular employees. The Court emphasized the need for adherence to legal principles and the constitutional scheme of public employment, highlighting the financial and operational constraints of the appellant company. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
