Holding

No automatic right to regularisation exists; regularisation is permissible only if a sanctioned post exists and the appointment is merely procedurally irregular, not substantively, and the matter must be remitted for factual determination.

Summary

Fourteen daily‑wage workers in the Uttarakhand Irrigation Department had worked for more than six years, completing at least 240 days each calendar year. The Labour Court ordered their regularisation, but the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the workers were entitled to regularisation. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that there is no automatic right to regularisation merely on the basis of length of service or completion of 240 days per year; regularisation can only be granted if a sanctioned post exists and the appointment was irregular only in procedural aspects, not in substance. The Court reiterated that the terms "regular" and "regularisation" do not confer permanence of employment and must be in accordance with service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court to examine the factual background, particularly the existence of sanctioned posts, and to decide afresh. The appeal was allowed and the case was sent back for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

Whether daily‑wage workers who have worked more than six years and completed 240 days each year are automatically entitled to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the term "regularisation" confers permanence of employment or can be granted de hors the service rules.
Whether the existence of a sanctioned post is a prerequisite for any direction of regularisation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 162, s. Article 309
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

regularisationdaily wagersIndustrial Disputes Actservice rulesArticle 309Article 162employment permanencesanctioned postlabour law

Judgment

>
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. A
V.
PRANTIYA SINCHAI AV AM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK
MAHAPARISHAD

OCTOBER 12, 2007 B
-1,
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.]

' Labour Laws:
c
Regularization-Daily wagers working/or more than six years~
Had completed 240 days in each calendar year-Claim for
regularization-Allowed by Labour Court-Order upheld by High
Court-On appeal, held: Before any direction for regularization can
be given, factual position has to be noted as to whether there was any
D
sanctioned post-Such factual details not discussed by either Labour
>---
Court or High Court-Matter remitted back to Labour Court to
,..,. consider the factual background and to decide the matter afresh.
The 14 workmen in question were working on daily wages for
more than six years and had completed 240 days in each calendar E
year.
The question which arose for consideration in the present
appeal is whether they ought to be regularized.

Allowing the appeal, the Court F
--1

-+ HELD: 1. There is no question of any automatic regularization.
The words 'regular' or 'regularization' do not connote permanence
and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of
tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any
G
procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects
as are attributable to methodology followed in making the
t appointments. Further, when rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise
187 H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 thereof
in contravention of the rules. Only something that is irregular for
want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of
selection which does not go to the root of the. process, can be
regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting
B permanence of employment is totally different and cannot be equated
with regularization. [Paras 8 and 9] [190-F-H; 191-A-B]

Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors.,
(2006] 4 SCC 1 and B.N Nagarajan & Ors. v. State ofKarnataka &
Ors., (1979] 4 5CC 507, relied on.
c
2. The completion of 240 days' work does not confer the right
to regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely
imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of
termination of the sen-ice. Only because a person had been working
D for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be
regularized in sen-ice. [Para 10] [191-C-D]

Madhyamik Shiksa Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra & Ors.,
[2005] 5 SCC 122; MP. Housing Board and Anr. v. Afonoj Srivastava,
[2006] 2 SCC 702; Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., [2007) 1 SCC
E 533; Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian
Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2007] 1 SCC 408 and Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors., (2007] 6 SCC 207,
relied on.

F 3. It is not in dispute that some of the concerned workmen have
been regularized. Before any direction for regularization can be
given, the factual position has to be noted as to whether there was
any sanctioned post. Apparently, in the present case, these factual
details have not been discussed by either the Labour Court or the
G High Court. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to
consider the factual background and-to decide the matter afresh in
the light of what has been stated in Uma Devi's case and Hindustan
Aeronautics' case. [Para 12] [192-C-D]

Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors.,
H [2006] 4 SCC 1 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh
STATE v. PRANTIYASINCHAI AV AMBANDH YOGANA 189
SHRAMIKMAHAP ARISHAD [PASAYAT, J.]
and Ors., (2007] 6 SCC 207, relied on. A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4856 of
2007.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 10.8.2005 of the High
Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 4894 of2001 (M/ B
S).

P.N. Gupta for the Appellants.
Bharat Sangal, Samyadip Chatterji and A. Ramakrishnan for the
Respondent. C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAY;\T, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
D
Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the writ petition filed1 by
f- the appellants.

/ 3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:-
On the basis of a dispute raised, reference was made to the Labour
E
Court, Haldwani, Uttar Pradesh, referring the following question for
adjudication:-
"Whether the non-regularization of 14 members mentioned in
the Schedule by the employers is improper or unjustified? If yes,
to what relief/benefit the concerned workmen are entitled, from F
~ which date and with what other details?"
-;
The employer took the stand that the concerned workmen were
being engaged from time to time on temporary basis and wages and other
benefits as admissible were being paid. The question of any regularizatjon
G
does not arise. The Labour Court found that the employees were ~ot
regularized because of non-creation of posts by the Government. Stand
t of the workmen was that several permanent posts were lying vacant in
the Irrigation Department. The Labour Court accordingly directed that
salary and other benefits ought to be paid to the concerned workers while
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A considering them regular with effect from the date of judgment of the
Labour Court. It was, accordingly, held that non-regularization was illegal.
4. A writ petition was filed before the Uttaranchal High Court which
was dismissed by the impugned order. The High Court was of the view
B that all the 14 workmen, in question, were working on daily wages for
more than six years and had completed 240 days in each calendar year
and they ought to be regularized. Accordingly, the writ petition was ;-
dismissed.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
C submitted. that the directions given by the Labour Court and the High
Court were clearly contrary to what has been stated by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma
Devi (3) and Ors., [2006] 4 SCC 1.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted
D that the concerned workmen had worked for more than 240 days in each
of the six years they were engaged. Therefore, they were entitled to be
regularized.
7. With reference to the order of the Labour Court, it is submitted
E that payments were being made to them on the basis of sanctioned wages.
From this, it was contended, it is clear that there were sanctioned posts.
8. In Uma Devi's case (supra), the issue relating to regularization
was examined at length. It was essentially held that there was no question
of any automatic regularization.
F
9. In B.N Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,
[1979] 4 5 sec 507, it was held that the words "regular" or
"regularization" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so
as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are
G terms.calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant
to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in
making the appointments. Further, when rules framed under Article 309
of the Constitution oflndia are in force, no regularization is permissible in
exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162
H thereof in contravention of the rules. This view has been approved by the
t
STATEv. PRANTIYASINCHAIAVAMBANDHYOGANA 191
,..
( SHRAMIKMAHAP ARISHAD [PASAYAT, J.]
Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case (supra) at para 16. It was A
emphasized here that only something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which
does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone
can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is totally
different and cannot be equated with regularization. B
~ 10. The next question which requires consideration is whether
completion of 240 days in a year confers any right on an employee or
Ir
' workman to claim regularization in service. In Madhyamik Shiksa
Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra & Ors., (2005] 5 SCC 122, it was
held that the completion of240 days' work does not confer the right to c
regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain
,__ . obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the servi~e. In
MP. Housing Board and Anr. V. Monoj Srivastava, [2006] 2 sec 702
(paragraph 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been re-
iterated that it is well settled that only because a person had been working D
r' for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized
in service. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens
./ Ltd., [2007] 1 SCC 533. The same question has been examined in
considerable detail with reference to employee working in a Government .
Company in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Workman, E
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007] 1 SCC 408 and
paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment are being reproduced below:-
"34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily
wager to seek regularization. Regularization can only be done in
~
accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules. In the case of F
~
E. Ramakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Ors., [1996]
10 5 SCC 565 this Court held that there can be no regularization
de hors the rules. The same view was taken in Dr. Kishore v.
State of Maharashtra, [1997] 3 SCC 209) and Union of India I
and Ors. v. Bishambar Dutt, (1996] 11 SCC 341. The direction G
issued by the Services Tribunal for regularizing the services of
l
I persons who had not been appointed, on regular basis in
accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had
been working regularly for a long time.
H
i·
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 35. In Dr. Surinder Sinqh Jamwal and Anr. v. State ofJammu
& Kashmir and Ors., AIR (1996) SS 2775, it was held that ad
hoc appointment, does not give any right for regularization as
regularization is governed by the statutory rules.

B 11. The above positi.on was highlighted in Hindustan Aeronautics
Ltd. V. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors., (2007] 6 sec 207.
12. It is not in dispute that some of the concerned workmen have.
been regularized. Before any direction for regularization can be given, the
factual position has to be noted as to whether there was any sanctioned
C post. Apparently, in tl1e present case, these factual details have not been
discussed by either the Labour Court or the High Court. We, therefore,
remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider the factual background and
to decide the matter afresh in the light of what has been stated in Uma
Devi's case (supra) and Hindustan Aeronautics case (supra).
D 13. The appeal is al 1owed to the aforesaid extent with no order as
to costs.
B.B.B. Appeal Allowed.

r