Supreme Court of India
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusKARAMJIT SINGH
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 529
- Decided
- 15 April 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- UDAY UMESH LALIT
Holding
An appointment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is void ab initio, and a person so regularized is not an ‘employee’ entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act; therefore, the termination of his service does not require a disciplinary enquiry.
Summary
The respondent, Karamjit Singh, was initially appointed as a daily‑wage chowkidar and later regularized through an Office Order that allegedly interpolated his name into the final list of employees, despite not having the requisite three years of continuous service. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) subsequently annulled the regularization and terminated his service, which the respondent challenged under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court had held that a disciplinary enquiry was required before terminating a permanent employee, but the Supreme Court found that the regularization was obtained by fraud and was void ab initio, rendering the respondent not an “employee” for the purposes of the Act. Consequently, the termination did not require the procedural safeguards of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court relied on precedents that illegal appointments cannot be equated with lawful ones and set aside the High Court’s order, allowing PUDA’s termination. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was directed to recover the costs deposited in his favour.
Issues considered
- Whether termination of service of a person regularized through a fraudulent appointment requires a disciplinary enquiry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether a regularization obtained by misrepresentation renders the person a ‘workman’ entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. is applicable to a daily‑wage employee regularized illegally.
- Whether the High Court erred in applying the principle that a permanent employee must be afforded a disciplinary enquiry in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25-F, s. 25-G, s. 25-H
Subjects
regularizationillegal appointmentIndustrial Disputes Acttermination of servicedaily wagervoid appointmentdisciplinary enquirynatural justice
Judgment
864 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 5 S.C.R. 864
REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.
A PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
KARAMJIT SINGH
B (Civil Appeal No. 3925 of 2019)
APRIL 15, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
C Termination of service – Without holding inquiry – Propriety
of – Regularization of daily wager – Thereafter the regularization
was annulled and the service of the employee was terminated –
Termination order challenged – Labour Court upheld the order of
termination – In writ petition, Single Judge High Court set aside
the order passed by Labour Court holding that before terminating
D
the service of permanent employee, authority should have conducted
an enquiry – Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of
Single Judge in LPA – On appeal, held: Service rendered in
pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated
to service rendered in pursuance of a valid and lawful appointment
E – The employee had secured regularization on the basis of
interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for
regularization – Such an appointment is void ab initio and
termination thereof does not require disciplinary proceedings –
Termination was justified – Labour Laws.
F Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An order of regularization obtained by
misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent
authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. If the initial
appointment itself is void, then the provisions of the Industrial
G Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable for terminating the services
of such workman. [Para 5.5][873-D-E]
Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2013)
9 SCC 363 : [2013] 8 SCR 471; Rajasthan Tourism
H
864
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 865
AUTHORITY v. KARAMJIT SINGH
Development Corporation & Anr. v. Intejam Ali Zafri A
(2006) 6 SCC 275 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 533 ; Bank
of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar (2005) 7 SCC 690 :
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 170 – relied on
2. Service rendered in pursuance of an illegal appointment
or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance B
of a valid and lawful appointment or promotion. The illegality of
such an appointment goes to the root of the respondent’s
absorption as a regular employee. The respondent could not be
considered to be an “employee”, and would not be entitled to
any benefits under the Regulations applicable to employees of
the appellant-Authority. [Paras 6.1 and 6.2][874-B-D] C
Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin
Bank & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 345 : [2009] 15 SCR 1133
– relied on.
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. D
B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727 : [1993] 2
Suppl. SCR 576 – held inapplicable.
3. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as
envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any
other disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since E
the respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the appellant-
Authority, and did not hold a civil post under the State
Government. He was merely a daily wager on the muster rolls of
the appellant-Authority. [Para 7][874-E-F]
The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kirti Narayan Prasad 2018 F
(15) SCALE 352 ; Superintendent of Post Offices &
Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu (2007) 2 SCC 335: [2006] 10
Suppl. SCR 1094 – relied on.
4. The respondent had sought to secure regularization on
the basis of interpolation in the final list of employees
G
recommended for regularization. Such an appointment would be
illegal and void ab initio, and cannot be sustained. The appellant-
Authority rightly terminated the respondent vide Order dated
22.05.2003. [Para 9][875-A-C]
H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576 held inapplicable Para 4.2
[2013] 8 SCR 471 relied on Para 5.5
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 533 relied on Para 5.5
B [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 170 relied on Para 5.5
[2009] 15 SCR 1133 relied on Para 6.1
2018 (15) SCALE 352 relied on Para 7
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR1094 relied on Para 7
C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3925
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2018 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 894 of 2018.
D Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, K. Vaijayanthi, Shailabh Pandey,
Ms. Prerana Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. or the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
E
1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the final
Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2018 passed by a Division Bench of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in LPA No. 894 of
2018.
F 2. The factual background of the case, is as under:
2.1. On 01.12.1995, the Respondent was appointed as a
Chowkidar on daily wages by the Appellant – Punjab Urban
Planning and Development Authority. His name was on the
muster rolls till 31.03.1997.
G 2.2. On 23.01.2001, the Government of Punjab revised the Policy
for regularization of work-charged / daily wage and other
categories of employees.
As per the revised Policy, all the Departments under the
Government of Punjab were directed to prepare lists of
H work-charged employees, daily wagers, and other similar
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 867
AUTHORITY v. KARAMJIT SINGH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
categories of employees, who had completed 3 years of A
service. From such lists, employees would be absorbed /
regularized against regular posts existing in each
Department, in order of seniority.
2.3. On 26.12.2001, the Appellant – Authority issued an Office
Order regularizing the services of 102 daily wagers as per B
the State Government’s revised Policy dated 23.01.2001.
2.4. The Respondent’s name was included in the Office Order
issued by the Appellant – Authority. Consequently, his
services came to be regularized w.e.f. 06.11.2001.
2.5. Subsequently, two employees of the Appellant – Authority C
viz. Baldev Singh and Rikhi Ram, filed Writ Petition No.
15843 of 2002 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court,
challenging the Office Order dated 26.12.2001. The
Respondent was impleaded as a party in the said Writ
Petition. It was alleged that there were irregularities in the D
regularization of certain employees, including that of the
Respondent.
2.6. The High Court vide Order dated 01.10.2002, directed the
Appellant – Authority to treat the Writ Petition as a
representation on behalf of the writ petitioners, and pass a E
speaking order within 4 months.
2.7. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Appellant –
Authority scrutinized the list of employees who were
regularized vide Office Order dated 26.12.2001. The
Authority called for a report from the Executive Engineer F
(C/Project – II), Mohali. The report revealed that the
Respondent had not completed the requisite period of
3 years’ service prior to 22.01.2001.
2.8. The Appellant – Authority issued a Show Cause Notice
dated 24.03.2003 to the Respondent directing him to appear
G
before the Chief Administrator of the Appellant – Authority
on 31.03.2003 for a personal hearing.
2.9. On 31.03.2003 the Respondent appeared before the Chief
Administrator of the Appellant – Authority for the personal
hearing. The Chief Administrator found that the Respondent
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.
A failed to furnish any evidence whatsoever, documentary or
otherwise, or any satisfactory proof of having served the
Appellant – Authority for at least 3 years prior to 22.01.2001.
The Chief Administrator vide Order dated 22.05.2003,
annulled the regularization of the services of the Respondent.
B It was held that the regularization of the services of the
Respondent was not as per the revised Policy issued by the
Government of Punjab on 23.01.2001.
2.10. The Respondent challenged the Order dated 22.05.2003
passed by the Chief Administrator, by way of Writ Petition
C No. 8354 of 2003 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition vide Order
dated 23.10.2003, and granted the Respondent liberty to
approach the Labour Court for redressal of his grievances.
2.11. On 20.12.2003, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute
D against the Appellant – Authority before the Additional
Labour Commissioner, Punjab. The matter was referred to
conciliation.
Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala.
E
2.12. The Respondent submitted that his services had been illegally
terminated by the Appellant – Authority vide Order dated
21.11.2003. He contended that he had continuously worked
with the Appellant – Authority from 01.12.1995 till
21.11.2003, and had put in more than 240 days of service in
F the last calendar year. The Respondent alleged that the
termination of his services was in violation of Section 25-F,
25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.13. The Appellant – Authority submitted that the Respondent
worked as a daily wager, whose name was borne on the
G muster rolls. As per the record, there were breaks in his
service from 01.12.1995 till 31.03.1997. He had put in only
6 months of service prior to 31.03.1997. After 1997, the
Respondent was not employed as a daily wager with the
Appellant – Authority.
H
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 869
AUTHORITY v. KARAMJIT SINGH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
It was further submitted that the Respondent’s name A
was not included in the original list dated 12.09.2000
forwarded by the Divisional Engineer, PUDA, Mohali to
the Superintending Engineer, PUDA, Mohali.
The Respondent’s name however came to be included
in the final list recommended for regularization, through his B
connivance with some officials of the Appellant – Authority.
2.14. The Industrial Tribunal, Patiala dismissed the Reference
made by the Respondent vide Order dated 15.10.2013. It
was held that since the entry of the Respondent into service
on 26.12.2001 was through wrongful means, his services C
were rightly terminated vide Order dated 22.05.2003.
2.15. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
the Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 21519 of 2014 before
the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
A Single Judge of the High Court vide Order dated D
07.02.2018, allowed the Writ Petition filed by the
Respondent, and set aside the Order dated 15.10.2013
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala.
The learned Single Judge held that “rightly or wrongly”
the Respondent’s services had been regularized on E
26.12.2001 under the revised Policy of the State
Government. Thus, permanent status had been given to the
Respondent w.e.f. 26.12.2001.
The learned Single Judge held that it was necessary for
the Appellant – Authority to have issued a charge-sheet, F
conduct an enquiry against a permanent employee, before
terminating or dismissing him from service under the
Regulations. Undisputedly, since no charge-sheet had been
issued, or enquiry conducted, the action of terminating the
services of the Respondent by merely issuing a Show Cause
G
Notice, and granting a personal hearing was not sufficient
compliance with the Regulations. The order of termination
dated 22.05.2003, and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal
were set aside.
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.
A The learned Single Judge granted liberty to the
Appellant – Authority to take necessary action against the
Respondent under the statutory Regulations. It was ordered
that the Appellant – Authority pass a final order after
conducting a disciplinary enquiry against the Respondent.
The Respondent shall be deemed to be under suspension,
B
from the date on which his services were terminated i.e.
22.05.2003 till the date of passing of the final order.
The Appellant – Authority was further directed to
calculate, and disburse subsistence allowance to the
Respondent from 22.05.2003 onwards, and continue to
C disburse the same till conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings against him.
2.16. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, the
Appellant – Authority filed LPA No. 894 of 2018 before
the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
D
The Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by the
Appellant – Authority vide impugned final Judgment and
Order dated 09.07.2018, and affirmed the Order dated
07.02.2018 passed by the Single Judge. It was held that the
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority
E Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1997
contained provisions for initiation of regular departmental
enquiry before dismissal or termination of a regular
employee. The termination of the services of the Respondent
by mere issuance of a Show Cause Notice was not only de
F hors the Regulations, but also contrary to the principles of
natural justice.
2.17. The Appellant – Authority filed the present Civil Appeal to
challenge the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2018 passed
by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
G On 22.11.2018, this Court issued Notice to the
Respondent, subject to the Appellant – Authority depositing
Rs. 25,000/- towards Costs of litigation for the Respondent.
The Appellant – Authority deposited the aforesaid amount
in this Court.
H
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 871
AUTHORITY v. KARAMJIT SINGH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
3. We have heard Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, learned Counsel for A
the Appellant – Authority, who inter alia submitted as under:
3.1. The Respondent worked with the Authority as a daily wager,
whose name was on the muster rolls from 01.12.1995 till
31.03.1997. He had put in only 6 months of service prior to
31.03.1997, and was not in service thereafter. Therefore, B
he was not eligible to be regularized under the State
Government’s revised Policy dated 23.01.2001 which
required an employee to have completed 3 years’ of
continuous service prior to 22.01.2001, so as to be eligible
for regularization.
C
It was further submitted that the Respondent had
fraudulently, and in connivance with some officials of the
Appellant – Authority, got his name surreptitiously included
in the final list of employees recommended for
regularization.
D
3.2. The report submitted by the Executive Engineer
(C/Project – II), Mohali to the Chief Administrator showed
that the Respondent had not fulfilled the mandatory
pre-requisite of having served for 3 years’ or more up till
22.01.2001.
E
The Chief Administrator vide Order dated 22.05.2003
annulled the Office Order dated 26.12.2001 qua the
regularization of the services of the Respondent.
3.3. It was further submitted that the Appellant – Authority
conducted a disciplinary enquiry against the officials who F
had recommended the name of the Respondent for
regularization. The Enquiry Report dated 25.01.2005 found
four officials to have supplied wrong information with
respect to the regularization of the Respondent, and some
other daily wagers who had less than 3 years’ service.
G
Since the appointment of the Respondent on regular basis
was void on account of having been fraudulently obtained
by collusion, the Respondent was not entitled to the
protection under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.
A 4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent, submitted that:
4.1. There was no infirmity in the Orders passed by the Single
Judge and Division Bench of the High Court.
4.2. It was submitted that the present case was covered by the
B decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors.
v. B. Karunakar & Ors.,1 rendered by a Constitution
Bench of this Court.
5. We have carefully perused the pleadings and the written
submissions made by the parties, and also considered the submissions
C made at the oral hearing.
5.1. In the present case, the Respondent had sought to secure
regularization of his services, even though he did not fulfill
the pre-requisite of a minimum of 3 years of continuous
service prior to 22.01.2001 as per the revised Policy of the
D Government of Punjab for regularization of work-charged,
daily wage, and other similar categories of employees.
The Respondent had failed to produce any evidence
whatsoever to support his claim for regularization.
5.2. The Respondent had sought to have his name included in
E
the final list recommended for regularization by colluding
with certain officials of the Appellant – Authority, who had
interpolated his name in the final list forwarded to the
Authority.
5.3. The Appellant – Authority has filed a copy of the original
F
list dated 12.09.2000 prepared by the Divisional Engineer,
Mohali. The said list included the names of 21 employees
whose names were initially recommended for regularization.
A perusal of the list dated 12.09.2000 reveals that the
Respondent’s name was initially not recommended for
G regularization. However, in the final list forwarded to the
Appellant – Authority, the Respondent’s name was
interpolated.
1
H (1993) 4 SCC 727.
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 873
AUTHORITY v. KARAMJIT SINGH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
5.4. An enquiry was duly conducted to determine whether A
wrong information had been supplied by the concerned
officials of the Authority, so that the Respondent could get
the benefit of regularization.
The enquiry conducted by the Appellant – Authority
revealed that the officials were guilty of supplying wrong B
information to the authorities regarding the period of service
rendered by some daily wagers, including the Respondent.
The officials had failed to verify the information provided,
before forwarding it to the Authority. As a consequence,
punitive orders were passed against each of the officials.
C
In these circumstances, the Respondent was disentitled
from getting the benefit of a regular appointment with the
Appellant – Authority, in the absence of fulfilling the pre
requisite requirement.
5.5. It is well settled that an order of regularization obtained by D
misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the
competent authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.2
In Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation &
Anr. v. Intejam Ali Zafri,3 it was held that if the initial
appointment itself is void, then the provisions of the Industrial E
Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable for terminating the
services of such workman.
In a similar case, this Court in Bank of India v. Avinash
D. Mandivikar,4 held that since the respondent had obtained
his appointment by playing fraud, he could not be allowed F
to get the benefits thereof.
6. In the present case, the Single Judge had held that “rightly or
wrongly”, the Respondent had obtained regularization, and was therefore
entitled to a disciplinary enquiry. The Division Bench affirmed the
Judgment of the Single Judge.
G
6.1. The High Court however failed to appreciate that the
decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra)
2
Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 363.
3
(2006) 6 SCC 275.
4
(2005) 7 SCC 690. H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.
A is applicable to “employees” of Government Departments.
Since the very appointment of the Respondent on regular
basis was illegal, he could not be treated as an “employee”
of the Appellant – Authority.
In Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin
B Bank & Ors.,5 this Court held that service rendered in
pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion cannot be
equated to service rendered in pursuance of a valid and
lawful appointment or promotion.
6.2. The illegality of such an appointment goes to the root of the
C Respondent’s absorption as a regular employee. The
Respondent could not be considered to be an “employee”,
and would not be entitled to any benefits under the
Regulations applicable to employees of the Appellant –
Authority.
D Therefore, the High Court erroneously placed reliance
on the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad
(supra), which would not be applicable to the facts of the
present case.
7. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged
E under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any other disciplinary
rules did not arise in the present case since the Respondent was admittedly
not an “employee” of the Appellant – Authority, and did not hold a civil
post under the State Government.6 He was merely a daily wager on the
muster rolls of the Appellant – Authority.
F 8. It is abundantly clear from the facts of the case, and the material
on record that the regularization of the services of the Respondent was
illegal and invalid. The Respondent was provided a full opportunity to
adduce evidence to establish that he had 3 years’ continuous service
prior to 22.01.2001. However, he failed to furnish any proof whatsoever
to substantiate his claim.
G
9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Civil Appeal is
allowed, and the Order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Division Bench
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is set aside.
5
(2010) 1 SCC 345.
6
The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kirti Narayan Prasad, 2018 (15) SCALE 352;
H Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu, (2007) 2 SCC 335.
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 875
AUTHORITY v. KARAMJIT SINGH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
The appointment of the Respondent on regular basis was invalid A
since the Respondent did not have the pre-requisite experience of 3
years’ continuous service prior to 22.01.2001.
The Respondent had sought to secure regularization on the basis
of interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for
regularization. Such an appointment would be illegal and void ab initio, B
and cannot be sustained.
The Appellant – Authority rightly terminated the Respondent vide
Order dated 22.05.2003.
The Respondent is however entitled to withdraw the amount of
Rs. 25,000/- towards Costs, deposited by the Appellant – Authority C
pursuant to the Interim Order dated 22.11.2018 passed by this Court.
The Registry is directed to release the said amount in favour of the
Respondent.
Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
D
Ordered accordingly.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "regularization"Sign in to search