EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SUNIL SHANTRAM SATARKAR

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 10665-10667 of 2016, Judgment Date: May 01, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  10665-10667/2016


EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD                                               APPELLANT(S)


                                VERSUS

SUNIL SHANTRAM SATARKAR                                        RESPONDENT(S)

                                    WITH
C.A. NOS.5830-5831/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14279-14280/2017 @ CC Nos. 1491-
1492/2017
C.A. NOS.5823-5824/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14277-14278/2017 @ CC Nos. 53-
54/2017

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
      Delay  condoned.  Leave  granted  in  CC  Nos.1491-1492/2017  and  53-
54/2017.
2.    The appellants, who are common in all  these  appeals,  are  aggrieved
essentially by the  direction  issued  by  the  Industrial  Court  directing
either reinstatement or regularization/permanency in Class IV.   It  is  the
case of the appellants that going by the dictum laid down by this  Court  in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi & Others,  reported  in
2006  (4)  SCC  1,  the  respondents  cannot  be  regularized   or   granted
permanency.  Our particular reference is invited  to  paragraph  53  of  the
judgment.
3.    Learned counsel appearing  for  the  respondents  on  the  other  hand
points out that even  going  by  the  judgment  in  Uma  Devi  (supra),  the
appellant was bound  to  consider  the  case  of  respondents  as  one  time
measure.  Having not done that, the order passed  by  the  Industrial  Court
and as confirmed by the High Court are only to be  upheld  in  the  peculiar
facts of these cases.  It is also pointed out by  the  respondents  that  in
the case of similarly situated  workmen,  regularization  orders  have  been
granted.  Learned counsel for the appellants submits that  the  orders  will
have to be verified.
4.    Be that as it may, the fact remains that  the  respondents  have  been
working as a daily wagers for  last  more  than  25  years.   In  case,  any
similarly situated workmen who worked for 25 years or less  have  been  made
permanent, we do not find any justification in denying a  similar  treatment
to the respondents herein.
5.    Therefore, these appeals are disposed  of  with  a  direction  to  the
appellants to consider the cases of the respondents  in  the  light  of  the
directions issued by the Industrial  Court  and  as  affirmed  by  the  High
Court, taking into consideration  similar  treatment  granted  to  similarly
situated workmen.
6.    It will be open to the respondents to point out similar  instances  to
the appellants within a period of one month from  today.   Necessary  orders
in the light of the similar instances pointed out by the  respondents  shall
be passed by the appellants within a period of one month thereafter.
7.    We make it clear that these orders are passed in  the  peculiar  facts
of these cases.
8.    Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
9.    There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                              [R. BANUMATHI]
      NEW DELHI;
      MAY 01, 2017.