Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  10665-10667/2016

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE  ELECTRICITY BOARD  APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS SUNIL SHANTRAM SATARKAR RESPONDENT(S)

WITH C.A. NOS.5830-5831/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14279-14280/2017 @ CC Nos. 1491-1492/2017 C.A. NOS.5823-5824/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14277-14278/2017 @ CC Nos. 53-54/2017

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Delay  condoned.  Leave  granted  in  CC Nos.1491-1492/2017 and 53-54/2017. 2. The  appellants,  who  are  common  in  all  these appeals, are aggrieved essentially by the direction issued  by  the  Industrial  Court  directing  either reinstatement  or  regularization/permanency  in  Class IV.  It is the case of the appellants that going by the  dictum  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v.  Uma Devi & Others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, the respondents cannot be regularized  or  granted  permanency.   Our  particular reference is invited to paragraph 53 of the judgment.

Page 2

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the  other  hand  points  out  that  even  going  by  the judgment in Uma Devi (supra), the appellant was bound to  consider  the  case  of  respondents  as  one  time measure.  Having not done that, the order passed by the  Industrial Court  and as  confirmed by  the High Court are only to be upheld in the peculiar facts of these  cases.   It  is  also  pointed  out  by  the respondents that in the case of similarly situated workmen,  regularization  orders  have  been  granted. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the orders will have to be verified. 4. Be  that as  it may,  the fact  remains that  the respondents have been working as a daily wagers for last  more  than  25  years.   In  case,  any  similarly situated workmen who worked for 25 years or less have been made permanent, we do not find any justification in  denying  a  similar  treatment  to  the  respondents herein.   5. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of with a direction to the appellants to consider the cases of the respondents in the light of the directions issued by the Industrial Court and as affirmed by the High Court,  taking  into  consideration  similar  treatment granted to similarly situated workmen.

Page 3

6. It will be open to the respondents to point out similar instances to the appellants within a period of one month from today.  Necessary orders in the light  of the  similar instances  pointed out  by the respondents shall be passed by the appellants within a period of one month thereafter. 7. We make it clear that these orders are passed in the peculiar facts of these cases. 8. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; MAY 01, 2017.