Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 3765 of 2001, U.P. State electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Ors. decided on 09.10.2007 has taken the view that often Uma Devi's case (supra) is being applied by the Courts mechanically without seeing the facts of particular case as a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision, as such Uma Devi's case cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi's case inapplicable to the facts of the case. Relevant paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the said judgment are being extracted below:

16. We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that often Uma Devi#s case (supra) is being applied by Courts mechanically as if it were a Euclid#s formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University (supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hence, in our opinion, Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi case (supra) inapplicable to the facts of that case.

13. Now the facts of the present case are being looked into. Petitioners, who are from the lowest strata of the society; initially were inducted as part time casual labourers for performing and discharging duty and function of sweeper and then their status was converted into full time casual labourers and thereafter, they have been absorbed as regular majdoors. In the case of Uma Devi (supra), there was no statutory agreement in between the Employees Union and the authorities and powers of courts were being looked into as to whether courts have authority to issue direction for regularisation, qua incumbents, whose appointment is dehors the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Here, in the present case undisputed position is that on 29.09.2000 one time policy decision was taken by the Department of Telecom Service for converting part time casual labourers into full time casual labourers and thereafter they were to be adjusted as regular majdoors. Not only this, after incorporation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. in connection with absorption of Group 'C and Group 'D' staff, primarily meetings were held with three Federations and after long negotiation with unions, it was categorically agreed on 02.01.2001 for implementation of the Standing Orders of the Industrial Employment Act, 1946 and BSNL Service Rules were to be finalized after discussion with the recognised union formed by the optees of BSNL and the Standing Orders of the Industrial Employment Act, 1946. Further it was also categorically agreed for absorption of casual labourers in accordance with the order dated 29.09.2000. This particular agreement dated 02.01.2001 entered into between three Federations and BSNL in connection with absorption of Group 'C and Group 'D' staff was there and consequent to the same decision had been taken to absorb. One time policy decision was taken in this regard after BSNL had come into existence taking into account earlier agreement and in between the employer and employees union once such an agreement has taken place, then it was binding and the benefit which has been conferred for regularization was strictly in consonance with the said agreement, which has statutory flavour in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the case of Uma Devi, such a situation was not there, as there was no statutory agreement in between the workers' union and employer in question, as such this is the most distinguishing feature available in the present case, as such the principle laid down in the case of Uma Devi could not have been invoked mechanically in the present case, as here regular status has been accorded on account of settlement made by BSNL and the three employees Federations, which was finalized on 02.01.2001. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly provides that settlement arrived at by means of agreement in between employer and the workers otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. The respondents do not dispute that there is agreement and it is binding on them. The only reason which has come, is that on account of Uma Devi's case no regularization is feasible. The fact of the agreement entered into inter se Employees union and BSNL has been totally ignored by the authorities while proceeding to cancel the regularization, whereas said agreement has statutory effect and was binding inter se parties in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as one time measure once decision has been taken for extending the benefit of regularization, the ratio of law laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) could not have been applied mechanically, as has been done in the present case.

25. At last Sri Subodh Kumar has contended that large scale manipulations have been committed in extending the benefit of regularization. The sole ground on which regularisation has been cancelled is the judgment in Uma Devi's case and no other ground has been disclosed. In case there is any fraud or misrepresentation, then it is open to the authorities to issue show cause notice and thereafter cancel the regularisation, but here said grounds have not been taken in the impugned order, and impugned order is nothing but mechanically following of the judgment in case of Uma Devi (supra), which cannot be subscribed, as Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UP. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) has held that each case has to be decided on its fact and not by blindly following the Uma Devi's case.