High CourtDivision Bench1990-08-06Petition dismissed.

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA M'D ORS. v. NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appellate Jurisdiction: Special Leave Petition, (Civil) No. 12317 of 1987

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: L.M. Sharma
J.S. Verma
K. Jayachandra Reddy
Judgment Date: 1990-08-06
Court Decision / Holding: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, all 63 daily-rated workers, including the 54 petitioners, are to be given the benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and paid the specified amounts in addition to other dues, subject to the counter‑offer and Annexure R‑V details provided by the respondents.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Satyanarayan Sharma M'D Ors.

Respondents

National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.K. Ramamurthy
• A.K. Sanghi

Counsels for Respondents

• Vinod Bobde
• P.S. Nair
• K.V. Sreekumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners, daily-rated workers at the Diamond Mining Project, demanded regularisation and "equal pay for equal work" after years of performing the same duties as regular employees. The High Court had rejected the writ petition, finding that the petitioners were not regular employees, had no specific job, and were kept on the rolls for humanitarian reasons; the establishment’s financial losses and lack of vacancies were cited. In the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the respondents reiterated that there were no vacancies to absorb the petitioners and that the workers had been maintained on rolls without work. The Court acknowledged the project’s financial stress and the absence of vacancies, concluding that directing absorption and regularisation was unwarranted on the facts. The central principle clarified by the Court is that regularisation and parity pay arise only when a daily-rated worker is performing the same work as a regular employee and a vacancy exists; without such vacancy, regularisation cannot be compelled. Nevertheless, recognizing the humanitarian and financial realities, the Court directed that all 63 daily-rated workers (including 54 petitioners) be granted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits, with specified retrenchment and ex-gratia payments in addition to other dues. The petition was dismissed subject to this direction, with no costs. The decision preserves the principle against automatic regularisation while offering a structured exit route for the workers.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principle of regularisation of daily-rated workmen arises only when there is a vacancy and the daily-rated worker is performing the same work as the regular employee.
Equal pay for equal work.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they have been daily-rated workers for a long time, performing the same duties as regular employees, and thus are entitled to regularisation and parity in pay for equal work. They argued that WHEREVER regularisation would be warranted must depend on the existence of a vacancy and actual absorption, failing which no legal right to regularisation arises. They emphasized the repetitious nature of their duties in the Diamond Mining Project and sought relief that would accord them regular status and the pay of regular workers for the period of service rendered. They also urged the court to scrutinize the humanitarian grounds used to keep them on rolls without absorbing them into regular positions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents asserted that there were no vacancies to absorb the petitioners and that the workers were surplus to requirements; their retention on rolls was humanitarian and not a grant of regular status. They pointed to the project’s financial losses and to the voluntary retirement scheme offered to the workers as an alternative to absorption. The High Court’s dismissal was argued to be correct, as there was no duty to regularise where work did not exist and absorption was impossible given the economic context. They highlighted the need to protect the project’s viability while providing an option for workers to retire with benefits.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SATYANARAYAN SHARMA M'D ORS. v. NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA M'D ORS. ###### A _v._ ### NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ·-0 AUGUST 6, 1990 [L.M. SHARMA, J.S. VERMA AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.) _Labour and Services: Daily-rated workmen-Principle_ _of regu-_ ~"'!-_/arisation-When arises-'Equa/ pay for_ _eq1<a/_ _work'-Doctrinl!-_ ##### c [Applicability ][of ] The petitioners, claiming to be daily-rated workmen of the respondent Corporation in a writ before the High Court demanded regularisation of their services and equal pay for equal work on the ground that they were discharging the same duties as the regular work- _..,.. ers. Their claim was contested by the respondents on the ground that D there was no work for them for a lopg time and they had been continued on rolls on humanitarian grounds. The High Court rejected their claim. In their counter affidavit to the special leave petition it was stated on behalf of the respondents that there was no vacancy in the establishment to absorb the petitioners, that they were surplus to the requiref: ment of the project and that it had propgsed a scheme of voluntary retirement for their benefit which some of them had accepted. )...__. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court, HELD: I. The principle of regularisation of a daily-rated workmen and payment to him of the pay equal to that of a regular workman F arises only when there being a vacancy available for him, he is doing the same work as the regular workman and he is not absorbed against it or ........ not even paid the equal pay for the period during which the same work is taken from him. [620E-FJ # "' **2. In the instant case, there were no vacancies or work available** in the establishment for absorption of the petitioners. The question of G directing their absorption and regularisation, therefore, does not arise. However, they be given the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme and paid the specified amounts in addition to other dues. [619H; 620A; GI ## CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition,- (Civil) No. 12317 of 1987. ' H From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1987 of the Madh~a 618 SATYANARAYAN _v._ N.M.D.C 619 -,,>-Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 3308of1985. M.K. Ramamurthy and A.K. Sanghi for the Petitioners. Vinod Bobde, P.S. Nair and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered This p~tition for special leave is against the judgment dated 0 _2._ 9 .1987 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the petitioners' writ petition (M.P. No. 3308 of 1985). The petitioners demand regularisation of their services claiming to be daily-rated workmen for a long time in the mines of the Diamond Mining Project, Panna of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Their demands are of regularisation and "equal pay for equal work" on the ground that they are discharging the same duties as the regular workers. The management has throughout denied the petitioners' claim and alleged that, in fact, the petitioners have been continued on rolls on humanitarian grou_nds for several years, even though there is no work for them; and **as such, there is no question of regularising the petitioners and** **giving** them the pay of regular workers when in fact they are not doing any work for a long time. The High Court rejected the petitioners' claim and came to the following conclusion: "The petitioners are not regular employees, they do not have any specific job to do, they are surplus to the establishment and merely kept on the roll on humanitarian ground. The respondents are also running in heavy losses during the last three years and it is not possible to absorb the petitioners immediately as regular workmen. In fact, the petitioners are being paid their daily wages in spite of their being no work available for them." A B ##### c D E F Aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners have filed this petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the G Constitution. In response to notice of this petition, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 reiterating the stand taken before the High Court. It has been stated therein that there is no vacancy in the establishment to absorb the petitioners and the accumulated loss to H A B #### c D E F 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. the establishment as on 31st March, 1988 is Rs.10,29,40,583. A copy of the balance sheet has also been enclosed with the counter-affidavit. It - ~~ has been stated that the petitioners being surplus to the requirement of the Project, they cannot be regularised and their retention on the rolls is purely on humanitarian grounds so far. Further facts have been stated in support of their contention. It Ms also been stated that a Voluntary Retirement Scheme offering considerable amount to these daily-rated workmen has been framed, which is Annexure R-V to the counter affidavit. This document shows -the amount of retrenchment compensation and the ex-gratia payment offered to the 63 daily-rated ~~~ workmen under this Scheme. The 54 petitioners are included therein. It was stated at the hearing before us that 9 out of these 63 daily-rated workers mentioned in Annexure R-V have accepted this Scheme of Voluntary Retirement and respondent No. 2 is prepared to give benefit of the same even to those who may not have agitated their claim. _..., We do not find any ground to interfere with the High Court's decision in view of the clear findings supported by evidence that there are no vacancies or work available in the establishment for absorption of the petitioners and that for quite some time they have been continued on rolls and paid in spite of there being no work for them. On these facts, the question of directing their absorption and regularisation does not arise. The principle of regularisation of a daily-rated ')...,, workman and payment to him of the pay equal to that of a regular workman arises only when the daily-rated workman is doing the same work as the regular workman and there being a vacancy available for him, he is not absorbed against it or not even paid the equal pay for the period during which the same work is taken from him. On the clear findings in this case, this is not the position. This petition must, there- I"~ fore, fail. In spite of our above conclusion, keeping in view the offer made on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the counter-affidavit together with Annexure R-V thereto which was reiterated at the hearing before us, we direct that all the 63 daily-rated workmen including the 54 petitionG ers herein mentioned in the aforesaid Annexure R-V to the counteraffidavit be given the benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by respondent No. 2 and they be paid the specified amounts in addition to their all other dues. Subject to this direction, the special leave petition is dismissed. No costs. P.S.S. Petition dismissed.