2008 (2) TMI 428 - SC - Central Excise

Appointment procedures - Held that - If the appellant was not authorized under the statute to take recourse to Rule 130 of the Rules for the purposes as mentioned in the written statement before the Labour Court the said action itself must be held to be a nullity. In such a situation and particularly in view of the fact that in making recruitments of the respondents the equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 were not complied with the respondents cannot derive any benefit therefrom. The award passed by the Labour Court is set aside. direct that the remaining six workmen should be conferred all benefits which have been conferred to those who have since superannuated.If no benefit had been conferred upon the retired employees the Central Government shall by way of compensation pay a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- to each of the workman.The services of such respondents who are still working shall not be terminated except in accordance with law.The Commissionerate of Central Excise would issue necessary-directions to all Assistant Salt Commissioners in regard to their performance of statutory duties in terms of Rules 121 129 and 130 of the Rules.The workmen must be paid the minimum wages fixed therefor. Appellant shall subject to any statutory interdict may fix fair wages for the remaining six workmen.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in adjudicating the service matter of Central Government employees.
2. Legality of the impugned order concerning the performance of statutory duties by the Assistant Salt Commissioner.
3. Regularization of service for the workmen employed by the Department.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions regarding appointment and regularization.
5. Validity of the arrangement for supervising salt platforms and drying grounds.
6. Compliance with constitutional provisions regarding employment and regularization.
7. Consequences of the finding of the relationship of 'employer and employee'.
8. Authority of the Central Government in actions of its officers.
9. Compliance with statutory provisions in recruitment and employment actions.
10. Directions to be issued for the remaining workmen and performance of statutory duties.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in adjudicating service matters of Central Government employees. The appellant contended that such matters should be adjudicated before the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the Court did not permit raising this issue for the first time and proceeded to analyze the relationship between the appellant and the respondents as 'employer and employee'.

2. The legality of the impugned order concerning the performance of statutory duties by the Assistant Salt Commissioner was questioned. The Court found that the appellant had exceeded its jurisdiction in supervising salt platforms and drying grounds for multiple licensees without statutory backing. The Court emphasized that all actions of statutory authorities must be within the statutory framework.

3. The issue of regularization of service for the workmen employed by the Department was extensively discussed. The Court noted that the workmen had been working directly under the Department for several decades and had been provided with housing and leave facilities. The Court emphasized that regularisation does not imply permanency and highlighted the need for compliance with constitutional provisions in appointment and regularization processes.

4. Compliance with statutory provisions regarding appointment and regularization was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Court emphasized that recruitment actions must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that the absence of sanctioned posts and compliance with employment exchange notifications raised concerns regarding the appointment process.

5. The validity of the arrangement for supervising salt platforms and drying grounds was questioned in the judgment. The Court found that the appellant had exceeded its jurisdiction in implementing such arrangements without statutory authorization. The Court stressed the importance of acting within the statutory framework and not beyond it.

6. Compliance with constitutional provisions regarding employment and regularization was a key issue addressed in the judgment. The Court highlighted the need for compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in recruitment and regularization processes to ensure fairness and equality in employment practices.

7. The consequences of the finding of the relationship of 'employer and employee' were discussed in detail. The Court emphasized that regularization does not imply permanency and highlighted the need for creating sanctioned posts and laying down terms and conditions in compliance with constitutional provisions.

8. The authority of the Central Government in actions of its officers was examined in the judgment. The Court emphasized that statutory actions must align with the provisions of the statute and that all actions of statutory authorities must be confined within the statutory framework to avoid nullity of actions.

9. Compliance with statutory provisions in recruitment and employment actions was a significant aspect of the judgment. The Court highlighted the importance of complying with statutory provisions in recruitment processes and emphasized that actions must be within the statutory framework to be valid.

10. The judgment concluded with specific directions to be issued for the remaining workmen and the performance of statutory duties. These directions included conferring benefits on the remaining workmen, payment of compensation to retired employees, and issuing necessary directions to Assistant Salt Commissioners regarding the performance of statutory duties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues addressed and the Court's findings and directions in each aspect of the case.