2006 (2) TMI 721 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of respondent's appointment as a Typist.
2. Legality of termination of respondent's services.
3. Applicability of M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963.
4. Interpretation of Standing Orders regarding regularization.
5. Application of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Compliance with statutory requirements for appointment.
7. Authority to issue appointment orders.
8. Termination of services without complying with Section 25F.
9. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Analysis:

1. The respondent was temporarily appointed as a Typist by the Branch Manager of the appellant corporation. The appellant contended that the appointment was illegal as only the Managing Director was designated as the appointing authority. The Labour Court held that the respondent had acquired the right to be appointed as a regular employee as per the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, and the termination of his services was deemed illegal.

2. The termination of the respondent's services was challenged on the grounds that his initial appointment was illegal. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's working status and transfer, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The High Court further ruled the termination illegal under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, leading to a Letters Patent Appeal being dismissed by a Division Bench.

3. The Industrial Courts and High Court applied the principle that completion of 240 days of service should lead to regularization. However, the Supreme Court clarified that regularization does not imply permanence. The Court emphasized that a temporary employee does not automatically gain a right to regularization based solely on the duration of service.

4. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to establish that appointments must adhere to statutory regulations and constitutional requirements. The Court highlighted that an appointment made contrary to the provisions of the statute would be void, and no legal right could be derived from such an appointment.

5. The Court noted that the respondent's termination without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was illegal. Despite an interim order allowing the respondent to continue in service, the Court directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 instead of reinstating the respondent, considering the circumstances of the case.

6. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the previous orders and allowed the appeal with directions for compensation to be paid to the respondent. The Court emphasized that the appellant should not suffer due to a court's mistake, and the respondent cannot take advantage of an erroneous order.