High CourtConstitution BenchAwaiting consideration by a Nine-Judges Bench; ...
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh
Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2002
Neutral Citation:[2017] 1 S.C.R. 83
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- T. S. Thakur
- Madan B. Lokur
- S. A. Bobde
- Adarsh Kumar Goel
- Uday Umesh Lalit
- D. Y. Chandrachud
- L. Nageswara Rao
- Judgment Date
- 2017-01-02
- Court Decision / Holding
- The papers be now placed before the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate Nine-Judges Bench to answer the questions raised in the reference order dated 11 May 2005; the matter is referred for disposition by a Nine-Judges Bench.
- Final Disposition
- Awaiting consideration by a Nine-Judges Bench; matter referred for constituting the Nine-Judges Bench to decide the reference questions posed by the Five-Judges Bench in 2005.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- State of Uttar Pradesh
Respondents
- Jai Bir Singh
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • null
Counsels for Respondents
- • null
Case Synopsis & Summary
This judgment arises from a reference in a Civil Appeal challenging the interpretation of the scope and consequences of the decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213. The Supreme Court, hearing the State of Uttar Pradesh’s appeal against Jai Bir Singh, and a batch of connected matters, acknowledges that the issues involve far-reaching consequences for the status of work as “employees” and for the governance of industrial relations. The Court notes that serious doubts have been expressed in the reference order about the correctness of the view in Rajappa and the related interpretation adopted by the five-judge bench. In view of the serious, wide-ranging implications and the need for finality, the Bench concludes that the questions raised are of such gravity that they require reconsideration by a larger Bench. Consequently, it directs that the appeals be placed before a Nine-Judges Bench to answer the reference questions posed in the order dated 11 May 2005, which had referred the matter to a larger bench. The order emphasizes that the matter has been placed before a Nine-Judges Bench for a conclusive resolution, and the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting the appropriate bench. The proceedings now focus on whether the required larger bench should reinterpret the Rajappa standard.
Provisions of Law Cited
null
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- null
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Not provided in the excerpt.
Contentions of Respondents
Not provided in the excerpt.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bangalore Water Supply & Sewarage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. | (1978) 2 SCC 213 | Mentioned Only | Cited as the case whose view is questioned in the reference order and which is proposed to be re-examined by the Nine-Judges Bench. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v Jai Bir Singh | (2005) 5 SCC 1 | Mentioned Only | Cited as the decision under reference by the Five-Judges Bench, the view of which is being reconsidered by a larger Bench. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 83
A
## STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
## JAI Bm. SINGH
(Civil Appeal No.897 of2002)
## JANUARY 02, 2017
B
(T. S. THAKL'R, C.J.I., MADAN B. LOKUR, S.A. BOBD.J<~, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND L. NAGF.SWARA RAO, J.J.}
- _Reference to larger bench Reference order by a Five-Judges_ c _Bench pursuant to which matter placed before Seven-Judges Bench_ - _In view of serious all{/ ·wide ranging implications of the issue invoh,ed as al.m the fact that serio11s doubts have been e>.]Jressed in the reference order abouJ the correctnes.o; of the view in_ Banga lore Water Supply and Sewerage Supply & Sewerage Board etc. v. A. Rajappa and Ors. etc. (1978) 2 SCC 213, _mu11er referred to Nine-_ D _Judges Bench._
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition ~o. 32&2 of2001.
E
WITH
C.A. Nos. 1276, 1278, 1279, 6114, 8597 of200 l
. C.A. Nos. 2409, 2~06, 4569, 5101,6108,6471 of2002
SLP (C) No.20982 of2002·
C.A. No. 7994 of2004
SLP (C) Nos.l\291, 14085. 14127 of2004
C.A.No.812 of2005
SLP (C) No. 4l39.of2005
C. A. Nos.1273, 1274, 3647, 4646 of2007
G
SLP (C) No. 1630 I of 2007
C. A. Nos. 296, 1311-1312 of2008
SLP (C) Nos.31 07,4327, 4328,4329, 16276, 17224 of2008
H
83
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
A SLP (C) No.l112 of2009
SLP (C) ... CC No.7990 of2009
C.A. "\Jos. 3920, 5681 of20 I 0
C.A.Nos. 3119, 7757 of20 II
C.A. ~o.ll31 of20 12
B
_C.i\._ Nos.4505-4506, 4507-4508 of20 13
SLP (C) l'\o.12679-12682 of20 14
C.A. No. 5.519 of20l2
## AND WITH
C SI.,P (C) No.l857 of20 16.
Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG, Dcvadatt Kamat, Purushindra Kaul'av, Nikhil Nayyar,AAGs., Sunil Gupta, Mrs. V.D. Makhija, Mrs. V. Mohana, Ms. Indira Jaising, Subramonitun Pmsad, C.U. Singh, Dinesh Dwivcdi, Silambannan, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advs. Vivek Vishnoi, M. R. Shamshad, D . Aditya Samadar, D.N. GobL1rdhan, Vimla Sexcna, Rajesh Ranjan, Karan Seth, Joel, Shashank Dcwa•'· Ms. Somya Rathorc~ B. Krishna Prasad, D. S. Mahra, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Gunwant Dam, Ms. Movita, Ms. Akhila J., M.K. Maroria, Bhtlrat Sangal, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms. Ajitha Sharma, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Samar Vijay Singh, SaJtiay Kr. Vi sen, Kamal Mohan Gupta. C. D. Singh, \.1s. Sylona Mohapatra, Vidit Arora, Rahul E Rajput. Saurabh Ajay Gupta. M. Yogcsh Kanna, Ms. Nilhya, Ms. Jltmumt ika Wah i, Ms. PLtia Singh, Ms. Aagam Kaur, V. N. Ragh u path y, Joseph Aristotle, Rajesh lnamdar, Javedur Rahman, Parikhit P. Angdi, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mukesh Verma, K. L.Janjani, Mishra Samabh, Ms. Anuradha M ishra, Ankit Kr. La I, F K uldip Singh, N. Sai Vi nod, Jagj it Singh Chhabra, Abhay Ncgdvi, Krishan Kumar, Joseph Aristotle S., Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Ms. K. Priyadarshini, Ms. Anitha Shcnoy, Pradcep Misra, Ms. Madhu Sikri, R. Chandrachud, Senthil J agadeesan, Jawahar Raja, Chinmay Kanojia, Gautam Bhatia. Pukhrambnm Ramesh Kumar. Uday Manaktala, Prcctcsh Kapur, Ardhen<.l'umauli Kumar Prasad, Manish Shankar Srivastava, Krishnam G Misra, Yasharth Kant, Ms. TarunaArdhendumauli Prasad, Namit Saxena, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha. Amritesh Raj, Panshul Chandra, Jaydip Pati, S. Ravi :Shankar, Yamunah N., Ms. Sneha Bhatnagar, Gunjan, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Mukesh Vermn. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Sangeeta Bhm1i, Krishanu Adhikary, Ms. Pr~rna Mehta, Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan,Aseem Katoch,Ajit Kumar Ekka, Ravi Prakash, Chand H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAI DIR SINGH
_85_
Kira11, Ms. Charu Lata Chaudhary. Ashok Kumar Sharma. Vikalp A Mudgal, Kshitij Mudgal, Ms. Nidhi, Vidya DharGaur. Ms. Shnlu Sharma, Naresh Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vi pin Gupta, Vishwajlt Singh, Dharat Sangal, S. _K._ Verma, S. N. Bhat, R. C. Kaushik, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Subhash Sharma, A. P. Mohanty, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gautam B Narayan, K. Rajeev, M. K. Garg, Ms. Sheela Goel, Abhay Nagavi. Krishan Kumar, Advs., with them for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Cou11 was del ivcred
## ORI>ER
'f. S. THAKUR, C.J.I. I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. We have also been taken throHgh relevant passages of the decision of this Collrt in _JJaugalor.e Water Supply & Sewarage Board e/c._ 1-: _A. Rqjuppa tmd_ Or.~. _etc._ ( 1978) 2 SCC 213 and the rete renee order passed by a Five-Judges Bench of this Court pursuant to which these matters have been placed bclorc us. Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions ul'gcd at the bar and the serious and wide ranging imp I icat ions of the issue that fall for determination as also the tact that serious doubb have been cx.prcss~d in the rdercncc order about the l:Orrectness of the view taken in _Bangalore Water_ Supp~v ~· _ca.'ie_ (supra), \vc are of the opinion that these appeals need to be placed before a Bench comprising Nine-Judges to be constituted by the Chief Just ice.
c
D
E
2. We order accordingly. The papers be now placed before the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate N ine-J udgcs Bench lo answer the questions raised in the reference order dated 5[111 ] May. 2005 passed by the Five-Judges Bench in _State of U.P_ " _Jai Bir Singlt_ (2005} _5_ sec 1.
F
Divya Pandey
Mattt:r rclcrcrrcd to larger bench.