Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors Vs.
Sri Vikram Chaudhary & Ors  INSC 312 (14 July 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 AIR 2325 1995 SCC (5) 210 JT 1995 (5) 636 1995 SCALE (4)545
Swarup, Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
have heard the counsel on either side. The appeal arises from the order of
single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 28.2.1994 made in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11535 of 1991. The appellant in its planned
development of urban areas, pursuant to U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973, had engaged the respondents on daily wages in the project on hand.
They filed a writ petition claiming parity in appointment and pay with the
regular employees and also for regularisation of their services. The single
Judge, while negating the relief of regularisation, given directions to follow
the principles in ss. 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
taken by the appellants is that ss. 25F and application. It is stated that as
regards the State of U.P. there is a local Industrial
Disputes Act and the provisions therein would be attracted, if Industrial
Disputes Act is at all applicable to the appellant. It is contended that the
appellant is not an industry and that, therefore, the principles contained in pari
materia provisions in the local Act have no application.
have gone through the judgment of the High Court.
learned judge did not intend to lay down that the appellant is an industry and
that the principles contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, Central or the
State Act stands attracted. What the learned Judge appears to have intended to
lay down is that so long as the appellant has work on hand, it appellant has no
power to terminate the contingent employees engaged on daily wages and that in
the event the appellant needs to terminate their services the principle of last
come first go should be followed and in the event of there being need for
re-employment, preference be given to the displaced respondents. The
observation made by the learned Judge is consistent with the well-established
principles of natural justice and equity, justice and good conscience. Therefore,the
learned Judge had rightly extended those principles with regard to the persons
employed by the appellant on daily wages.
stated that by implication of the order there is need for the appellant to keep
engaging the respondents even though there are no projects on hand. That
apprehension also does not appear to be correct. The appellant needs to take
the services of the persons according to the requirement in the projects on
hand. On completion of the existing projects in which the respondents are
working, if the appellant undertakes any fresh project, instead of taking the
services of fresh hands at the place of the new project, the appellant needs to
take the services of the existing temporary daily wage respondents. In the
event of the appellant not having any project on hand, the obligation to pay
daily wages to the respondents does not arise. However, the appellant shall
maintain the order of seniority of the daily wage employees and shall take the
services of the senior most persons in the order of seniority according to the
requirement of work.
they are temporary daily wage employees, so long as there is no regular posts
available for appointment, the question of making pay on par with the regular
employees does not arise. But the appellant should necessarily and by
implication, pay the minimum wages prescribed under the statute, if any, or the
prevailing wages as available in the locality.
appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.