IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10665-10667/2016
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD APPELLANT(S)
SUNIL SHANTRAM SATARKAR RESPONDENT(S)
C.A. NOS.5830-5831/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14279-14280/2017 @ CC Nos. 1491-
C.A. NOS.5823-5824/2017 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14277-14278/2017 @ CC Nos. 53-
J U D G M E N T
Delay condoned. Leave granted in CC Nos.1491-1492/2017 and 53-
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
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
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.
MAY 01, 2017.