STATE OF U.P. Vs. PURAN SINGH & ORS.

Tags Regularisation Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 5085-5089 of 2004, Judgment Date: Feb 06, 2017
                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             I.A. 19-23 OF 2015
                                   IN AND
                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5085-5089 OF 2004

STATE OF U.P.                                                   Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

PURAN SINGH & ORS.                                             Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.     The  State  approached  this  Court  challenging  the   order   dated
27.03.2003 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.  That  order
was passed on a challenge made by  the  appellant  herein  before  the  High
Court on the award passed by the Labour Court,  directing  reinstatement  of
the  respondents-workmen  and  regularisation.   However,  in  the  impugned
order, the High Court took the view that the  Labour  Court  went  wrong  in
directing regularisation and to that extent, the award was modified.   Still
aggrieved, the appellant-State is before this Court in these appeals.

2.    During the pendency of the  appeals,  on  a  submission  made  by  the
learned counsel appearing for the  workmen  that  there  have  been  various
schemes whereby the similarly situated workmen have been  regularised,  this
Court directed the appellant-State to consider the case of the  respondents-
workmen as well.

3.    Pursuant to our order dated 23.08.2016, the  Director,  Department  of
Sericulture has passed an order regularising the workmen.   On  regularising
the workmen, they have been posted  to  various  places,  according  to  the
appellant, in the available vacancies.  It is the case of the  workmen  that
being a very low paid employees, it would be  rather  difficult  to  survive
with such wages at around 300-400 kms away from their native places.

4.    Be that as it may, the main question that is raised in  these  appeals
is only as to whether the appellant-Department would  be  an  'Industry'  or
not, and in view of the intervening developments, we are of  the  view  that
there is no  point  in  keeping  the  appeals  pending  before  this  Court.
Therefore, the appeals are dismissed, leaving the question of law open.

5.    However,  we  direct  the  Director,  Sericulture  to  look  into  the
grievances of the workmen personally and see  whether  the  workmen  can  be
accommodated in places which are near to  their  residences.   The  Director
shall pass the required orders within one month from today.


6.     Pending  interlocutory  applications,  if  any,  stand  disposed  of.

      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                        [ A. M. KHANWILKAR ]

      New Delhi;
      February 06, 2017.
Back to Judgments