Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS .
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SRI VIKRAM CHAUDHARY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/07/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2325 1995 SCC (5) 210
JT 1995 (5) 636 1995 SCALE (4)545
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Shri Pramod Swarup, Advocate takes notice for the
respondents.
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on either side. The appeal
arises from the order of single Judge of Allahabad High
Court dated 28.2.1994 made in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
11535 of 1991. The appellant in its planned development of
urban areas, pursuant to U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973, had engaged the respondents on daily wages in the
project on hand. They filed a writ petition claiming parity
in appointment and pay with the regular employees and also
for regularisation of their services. The single Judge,
while negating the relief of regularisation, given
directions to follow the principles in ss. 25F and 25G of
the Industrial Disputes Act.
Objention taken by the appellants is that ss. 25F and
application. It is stated that as regards the State of U.P.
there is a local Industrial Disputes Act and the provisions
therein would be attracted, if Industrial Disputes Act is at
all applicable to the appellant. It is contended that the
appellant is not an industry and that, therefore, the
principles contained in pari materia provisions in the local
Act have no application.
We have gone through the judgment of the High Court.
The learned judge did not intend to lay down that the
appellant is an industry and that the principles contained
in the Industrial Disputes Act, Central or the State Act
stands attracted. What the learned Judge appears to have
intended to lay down is that so long as the appellant has
work on hand, it appellant has no power to terminate the
contingent employees engaged on daily wages and that in the
event the appellant needs to terminate their services the
principle of last come first go should be followed and in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the event of there being need for re-employment, preference
be given to the displaced respondents. The observation made
by the learned Judge is consistent with the well-established
principles of natural justice and equity, justice and good
conscience. Therefore,the learned Judge had rightly extended
those principles with regard to the persons employed by the
appellant on daily wages.
It is stated that by implication of the order there is
need for the appellant to keep engaging the respondents even
though there are no projects on hand. That apprehension also
does not appear to be correct. The appellant needs to take
the services of the persons according to the requirement in
the projects on hand. On completion of the existing projects
in which the respondents are working, if the appellant
undertakes any fresh project, instead of taking the services
of fresh hands at the place of the new project, the
appellant needs to take the services of the existing
temporary daily wage respondents. In the event of the
appellant not having any project on hand, the obligation to
pay daily wages to the respondents does not arise. However,
the appellant shall maintain the order of seniority of the
daily wage employees and shall take the services of the
senior most persons in the order of seniority according to
the requirement of work.
Since they are temporary daily wage employees, so long
as there is no regular posts available for appointment, the
question of making pay on par with the regular employees
does not arise. But the appellant should necessarily and by
implication, pay the minimum wages prescribed under the
statute, if any, or the prevailing wages as available in the
locality.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.