Case Note & Summary
The Himachal Pradesh Housing Board, established under the Himachal Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1972, engaged daily wage labourers on muster roll basis. The respondents, who were such daily wagers, had their services terminated by the Assistant Engineer of the Board on December 1, 1990. Feeling aggrieved, they filed O.A. No. 43 of 1991 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, contending that the Board is an industry under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that they are workmen under that Act, and that their termination was effected without complying with its requirements. They also alleged that juniors were still working and the principle of last come first go was not followed. The Tribunal passed an interim order on January 1, 1991, directing re-engagement of the respondents. The Board filed a reply denying the allegations, stating that the workers were engaged purely on daily wage basis and their services were dispensed with after completion of the work for which they were engaged, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. By order dated July 31, 1995, the Tribunal disposed of the application, directing the Board to consider the case of the respondents for regularisation on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316, within six months. It also directed that for those re-engaged and continuously working, the break due to termination shall be counted for regularisation service, but no back wages on the principle of no work no pay, and enhanced wages from January 1, 1994 as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya. The Board filed a review petition, which was dismissed on November 17, 1995. Hence the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal finally disposed of the O.A. and gave directions regarding regularisation without examining the legality of the termination. The question of regularisation could arise only if the termination was found invalid. The claim of illegal termination had been refuted by the Board. Without holding the termination invalid and that the respondents continued in service, the Tribunal erred in directing regularisation and payment of enhanced wages. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and review order, and remitted O.A. No. 43 of 1991 to the Tribunal for consideration of the validity of the termination of services. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Validity of Termination - Himachal Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1972; U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Tribunal directed regularisation of daily wagers and enhanced wages without first determining if their termination was invalid - The Supreme Court held that regularisation could only be considered if termination was found invalid, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of termination validity (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in directing regularisation and enhanced wages without first deciding the legality of termination of daily wage workers?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and review order set aside; O.A. No. 43 of 1991 remitted to Tribunal for consideration of validity of termination; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularisation cannot be directed without first determining validity of termination
- principle of last come first go
- daily wage workers
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Mool Raj Upadhyaya case directions
