2006 (11) TMI 699 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the respondent as a permanent employee.
2. Entitlement to back wages.
3. Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition.
4. Distinction between 'irregular appointment' and 'illegal appointment'.

Summary:

1. Classification of the respondent as a permanent employee:
The respondent was appointed on daily wages without adherence to statutory rules and without an offer of appointment. He sought classification as a permanent employee from the Labour Court, which ruled in his favor based on continuous service of more than six months, invoking Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court directed his classification as a permanent clerk retroactively from 11th November 1991. The High Court upheld this decision. However, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent was not appointed against a clear vacancy, was not on probation, and was not given a permanent employee ticket. The Court referenced Mahendra L. Jain & Ors. vs. Indore Development Authority & Ors. [(2005) 1 SCC 639] and other cases, concluding that the respondent's appointment did not comply with statutory rules and thus could not be regularized.

2. Entitlement to back wages:
The appellants contended that the respondent should not have been awarded back wages from 1992. The Supreme Court did not specifically address the back wages issue separately but implied that since the respondent's classification as a permanent employee was invalid, the entitlement to back wages would also be affected.

3. Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition:
The respondent argued that the Special Leave Petition was barred by limitation and the delay should not be condoned. The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay but decided to condone it, directing that any benefits already given to the respondent should not be recovered. Instead, the respondent was awarded Rs. 1,50,000 towards compensation and costs.

4. Distinction between 'irregular appointment' and 'illegal appointment':
The Court distinguished between 'irregular appointment' and 'illegal appointment', stating that an appointment made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and recruitment rules is illegal, whereas substantial compliance with some procedural lapses constitutes an irregular appointment. The Court referenced National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Somvir Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 493] and other cases, concluding that the respondent's appointment was illegal and thus he had no legal right to continue in service.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments, stating that the respondent's appointment was illegal and could not be regularized. However, it directed that any benefits already given should not be recovered and awarded the respondent Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation and costs. The appeal was allowed with no costs.