Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard civil appeals arising from special leave petitions filed by the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. against High Court orders directing regularization of ad hoc employees. The dispute arose because the respondents had been appointed on ad hoc basis pursuant to an earlier writ petition filed by many other employees. In that earlier round, the High Court by judgment dated 4.2.1991 in Writ Petition No 295337/90 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of retrenchment, and directed regularization of services. Some of the respondents in the present case were admittedly senior to those who had already received the benefit of regularization as confirmed by the Supreme Court on May 10, 1991. Consequently, the High Court in the impugned order followed the earlier judgment and allowed the writ petitions with similar directions. The Corporation challenged these orders before the Supreme Court. The Corporation argued that subsequent developments, namely that some establishments had been handed to the private sector and some were in the process of being wound up, would cause hardship if the earlier orders were enforced. The Supreme Court noted that earlier orders in favour of some employees had attained finality and therefore the respondents were entitled to the same benefit. The Court held that it could not go into the aspect of subsequent developments when the order in favour of some employees had become final. The appeals were dismissed. The Court directed that the contempt direction issued by the High Court may not be enforced, but the Corporation shall regularize the services of the respondents. If there was any difficulty in working out the regularization, the Corporation was at liberty to convene a tripartite meeting consisting of the workers' union, an officer of the Labour Department, and an officer of the appellant-Corporation to thrash out the problems and arrive at an amicable settlement. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Ad Hoc Employees - Finality of Earlier Judicial Orders - Not mentioned - The respondents were appointed on ad hoc basis and the High Court, in an earlier writ petition, had set aside retrenchment and directed regularization; the Supreme Court had confirmed that order, making it final. In the impugned order, the High Court followed the earlier judgment and granted similar directions to the respondents. The appellants contended that subsequent developments (privatization and winding up of establishments) caused hardship, but the Court held that once orders in favour of some employees attained finality, the respondents were entitled to the same benefit and such subsequent developments could not be reconsidered. The appeals were dismissed and the Corporation was directed to regularize services, with liberty to convene a tripartite meeting to resolve implementation issues. Held: Similarly situated ad hoc employees are entitled to regularization on par with earlier beneficiaries; finality of judicial orders cannot be defeated by subsequent administrative changes.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are entitled to regularization of their services in parity with earlier beneficiaries, and whether subsequent developments like handing over establishments to private sector or winding up affect the enforcement of such regularization orders.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; High Court direction for regularization upheld; contempt direction not to be enforced; Corporation shall regularize services and may convene tripartite meeting with workers' union, Labour Department officer, and Corporation officer to resolve implementation difficulties; no costs.
Law Points
- Earlier judicial orders attain finality
- similarly situated employees entitled to same benefit
- subsequent privatization or winding up cannot defeat vested rights
- regularization of ad hoc employees upheld
- tripartite meeting suggested for implementation difficulties
