1992 (8) TMI 298 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of fixing a particular date for regularisation.
2. Validity of the requirement that the employee should have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
3. Validity of the requirement that the concerned posts should not be within the purview of S.S.S.B.
4. Equal pay for equal work.
5. Regularisation of work charged employees, daily-wagers, casual labourers, and those employed in temporary schemes.

Summary:

1. Validity of Fixing a Particular Date for Regularisation:
The High Court held that "fixing a date has no reasonable basis or intelligible differentia for the object to achieve" and declared the dates fixed for regularisation policies by the governments of Punjab and Haryana as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court found no basis for holding that the fixation of dates was arbitrary, emphasizing that the orders were issued to meet specific situations and were not in the nature of statutes.

2. Validity of the Requirement that the Employee Should Have Been Sponsored by the Employment Exchange:
The High Court invalidated the requirement that only employees sponsored by the Employment Exchange should be regularised, considering it unjustified. The Supreme Court, however, upheld this condition, stating it was a reasonable and wholesome requirement designed to curb back door entries and irregular appointments.

3. Validity of the Requirement that the Concerned Posts Should Not Be Within the Purview of S.S.S.B.:
The High Court held that the imposition of this condition by the Government of Haryana was unreasonable and arbitrary, considering the historical context of the absence of the S.S.S.B. for a significant period. The Supreme Court did not alter or modify this direction, as the correctness of the factual statement was not questioned.

4. Equal Pay for Equal Work:
The High Court directed equal pay for equal work without discussing the specifics. The Supreme Court found this direction vague and lacking clarity on who would get what pay and on what basis, and thus set aside this direction.

5. Regularisation of Work Charged Employees, Daily-Wagers, Casual Labourers, and Those Employed in Temporary Schemes:
The High Court directed the regularisation of these categories of employees, considering their long-term service. The Supreme Court, however, found the direction for unconditional regularisation of all employees who had completed one year's service unsustainable, emphasizing the need for a vacancy and fulfillment of other conditions like qualifications and satisfactory service records. The Court highlighted the necessity for a practical and pragmatic approach in such matters and referred to the orders issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana, which provided for regularisation under specific conditions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's directions for unconditional regularisation and equal pay for equal work. It emphasized the need for a balanced approach, ensuring fairness while considering the practical implications on administration and public exchequer. The Court also provided guidance on the regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees and work-charged employees, urging the governments to frame appropriate schemes consistent with the principles enunciated.