Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Sunil Shantram Satarkar
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
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,
Signature Not Verified reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, the respondents cannot be Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
regularized or granted permanency. Our particular Date: 2017.05.05 11:15:28 IST Reason:
reference is invited to paragraph 53 of the judgment. 1
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.
2
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.
3
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.7 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10665-10667/2016
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUNIL SHANTRAM SATARKAR RESPONDENT(S) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing appeals)
WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 1491-1492/2017 (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 53-54/2017 (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)
Date : 01/05/2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Appellant(s) Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain,Adv.
For M/s. M.V. Kini & Associates
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar,Adv.
Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Delay condoned.
Leave granted in CC Nos.1491-1492/2017 and 53-54/2017. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed judgment.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed “Non-Reportable” Judgment is placed on the file)
4