Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
SATYANARAYAN SHARMA AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONLTD. AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1990
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 2054 1990 SCR (3) 618
1990 SCC (4) 163 JT 1990 (3) 374
1990 SCALE (2)169
ACT:
Labour and Services: Daily-rated workmen--Principle of
regularisation--When arises--’Equal pay for equal
work’--Doctrine-Applicability of.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners, claiming to be daily-rated workmen of
the respondent Corporation in a writ before the High Court
demanded regularisation of their services and equal pay for
equal work on the ground that they were discharging the same
duties as the regular workers. Their claim was contested by
the respondents on the ground that there was no work for
them for a long time and they had been continued on rolls on
humanitarian grounds. The High Court rejected their claim.
In their counter affidavit to the special leave petition
it was stated on behalf of the respondents that there was no
vacancy in the establishment to absorb the petitioners, that
they were surplus to the requirement of the project and that
it had proposed a scheme of voluntary retirement for their
benefit which some of them had accepted.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court,
HELD: 1. The principle of regularisation of a daily-
rated workmen and payment to him of the pay equal to that of
a regular workman arises only when he is doing the same work
as the regular workman and there being a vacancy available
for him, he is not absorbed against it or not even paid the
equal pay for the period during which the same work is taken
from him. [620E-F]
2. In the instant case, there were no vacancies or work
available in the establishment for absorption of the peti-
tioners. The question of directing their absorption and
regularisation, therefore, does not arise. However, they be
given the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme and
paid the specified amounts in addition to other dues. [619H;
620A; G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
(Civil) No. 123 17 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1987 of the Madhya
619
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 3308 of 1985.
M.K. Ramamurthy and A.K. Sanghi for the Petitioners.
Vinod Bobde, P.S. Nair and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respond-
ents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
This petition for special leave is against the judgment
dated 2.9.1987 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismiss-
ing the petitioners’ writ petition (M.P. No. 3308 of 1985).
The petitioners demand regularisation of their services
claiming to be daily-rated workmen for a long time in the
mines of the Diamond Mining Project, Panna of the National
Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Their demands are of
regularisation and "equal pay for equal work" on the ground
that they are discharging the same duties as the regular
workers. The management has throughout denied the petition-
ers’ claim and alleged that, in fact, the petitioners have
been continued on rolls on humanitarian grounds for several
years, even though there is no work for them; and as such,
there is no question of regularising the petitioners and
giving them the pay of regular workers when in fact they are
not doing any work for a long time.
The High Court rejected the petitioners’ claim and came
to the following conclusion:
"The petitioners are not regular employees, they do not have
any specific job to do, they are surplus to the establish-
ment and merely kept on the roll on humanitarian ground. The
respondents are also running in heavy losses during the last
three years and it is not possible to absorb the petitioners
immediately as regular workmen. In fact, the petitioners are
being paid their daily wages in spite of their being no work
available for them."
Aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners
have filed this petition for special leave to appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution.
In response to notice of this petition, a counter-affi-
davit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 reiterat-
ing the stand taken before the High Court. It has been
stated therein that there is no vacancy in the establishment
to absorb the petitioners and the accumulated loss to
620
the establishment as on 31st March, 1988 is Rs.
10,29,40,583. A copy of the balance sheet has also been
enclosed with the counter-affidavit. It has been stated that
the petitioners being surplus to the requirement of the
Project, they cannot be regularised and their retention on
the rolls is purely on humanitarian grounds so far. Further
facts have been stated in support of their contention. It
has also been stated that a Voluntary Retirement Scheme
offering considerable amount to these daily-rated workmen
has been framed, which is Annexure R-V to the counter affi-
davit. This document shows-the amount of retrenchment com-
pensation and the ex-gratia payment offered to the 63
daily-rated workmen under this Scheme. The 54 petitioners
are included therein. It was stated at the hearing before us
that 9 out of these 63 daily-rated workers mentioned in
Annexure R-V have accepted this Scheme of Voluntary Retire-
ment and respondent No. 2 is prepared to give benefit of the
same even to those who may not have agitated their claim.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the High
Court’s decision in view of the clear findings supported by
evidence that there are no vacancies or work available in
the establishment for absorption of the petitioners and that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
for quite some time they have been continued on rolls and
paid in spite of there being no work for them. On these
facts, the question of directing their absorption and regu-
larisation does not arise. The principle of regularisation
of a daily-rated workman and payment ’to him of the pay
equal to that of a regular workman arises only when the
daily-rated workman is doing the same work as the regular
workman and there being a vacancy available for him, he is
not absorbed against it or not even paid the equal pay for
the period during which the same work is taken from him. On
the clear findings in this case, this is not the position.
This petition must, therefore, fail.
In spite of our above conclusion, keeping in view the
offer made on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the counter-
affidavit together with Annexure R-V thereto which was
reiterated at the heating before us, we direct that all the
63 daily-rated workmen including the 54 petitioners herein
mentioned in the aforesaid Annexure R-V to the counter
affidavit be given the benefit of the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme framed by respondent No. 2 and they be paid the
specified amounts in addition to their all other dues.
Subject to this direction, the special leave petition is
dismissed. No costs.
P.S.S. Petition
dismissed.
621