SATYANARAYAN SHARMA Vs. NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on August 06,1990

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

AMITA GULATI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1996-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-1999-5-42] [REFERRED]
BALWANT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-5-24] [REFERRED]
SURESH KUMAR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-8-30] [REFERRED 3.]
R K RANDHONI DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2000-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
PRITISH RANJAN ROY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2005-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BHAWAN VS. SAHAYAK ABHIYANTA IVTH LIFT SINCHAI PRAKHAND ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
AGAMAIAH G VS. DIRECTOR NRSA HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2000-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSAN DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1991-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSAN DAS VS. UNITED BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1991-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
M L GUPTA VS. INSTRUMENTATION LTD [LAWS(PAT)-1991-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1992-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAMTHAKUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1992-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
BADARPUR THERMAL POWER STATION VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL II [LAWS(PAT)-1995-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR VS. VEER SINGH RAJPUT [LAWS(SC)-1997-8-29] [CONSIDERED]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. C D CHAUHAN [LAWS(GJH)-1993-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. RUDABHAI GIGABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2009-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
Rajkumar Burman VS. M.P. Police Housing Corporation [LAWS(MPH)-1998-9-83] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This petition for special leave is against the judgment dated 2-9-1987 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the petitioners' writ petition (M.P. No. 3308 of 1985 (reported in 1988 MPLJ 85). 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 petitioners' 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.
(2.)The High Court rejected the petitioners' claim and came to the following conclusion (1988 MPLJ 85 at p. 89):
"The petitioners are not regular employees, they do not have any specific job to do, they are surplus to the establishment 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.

(3.)In response to notice of this petition, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 reiterating 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 the establishment as on 31st March, 1988 is Rs. 10,29,40,5831-. 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-affidavit. This document shows the amount of retrenchment compensation 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 Retirement and respondent No. 2 is prepared to give benefit of the same even to those who may not have agitated their claim.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.