STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DEVI DUTT
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on November 24,2006

STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
VERSUS
DEVI DUTT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KULBHUSHAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NARENDER BAHADUR SINGH VS. MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-199] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAPAL SINGH VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR U.P.S.R.T.C. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER CURIO VS. SECRETARY CURIO CENTRE WORKERS UNION [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-599] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KARAMVIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
SNEH AGGARWAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-263] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALESHWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-197] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF CITY KNITTING COMPANY TIRUPPUR VS. K K SELVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-38] [FOLLOWED ON]
V MANOHARAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. RAMESHWAR DAYAL [LAWS(DLH)-2023-11-188] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS KUMAR VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
K. SIVAPRAKASHAM VS. MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TURBO ENERGY LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAPAL SINGH VS. U.P.S.R.T.C. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH DEVI VS. GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL SHAHDARA DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DELHI DOORDARSHAN KENDRA VS. MOHD SHAHBAZ KHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2024-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. MCD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-172] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS. LOKESH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-186] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHM PAL SINGH VS. P.O., INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.II [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER (P) CORPORATION BANK VS. K.T. SHIVA PRAKASH [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-244] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Respondents herein were recruited on daily wages. They were muster-roll employees. Pursuant to a decision of the High Court in Kulbhushan v. State of Haryana 1996 (1) RSJ 775, engagement of daily wagers was purported to have been banned in terms whereof the State issued instructions on 9.1.1996 to all the heads of departments, forbidding continuance of daily wagers on muster-roll. The work was directed to be carried out by workmen, whose services were to be regularised on fulfillment of terms and conditions of the policy laid down therefore. In terms of the said policy decision, the services of the respondents were terminated. Industrial Disputes were raised alleging violation of different provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). Before the Labour Court, both the parties adduced their respective evidences. By reason of three different Awards, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court arrived at a definite finding that the workmen having not been in continuous service for a period of 240 days during a period of 12 months preceding the order of termination, the retrenchment of the workmen was not violative of Section 25F of the Act. It was further held that the provisions of Sections 25G thereof had also not been infringed.
(3.)Writ petitions were filed by the respondents aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith. In the said proceedings, additional affidavits were filed. The High Court reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court holding that as the appellants had not denied or disputed that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers from February, 1993 to January, 1996, the impugned Awards could not be sustained. The matters were directed to be remitted to the Labour Court.
The State is, thus, before us.



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