Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

P.S.E.B. AND ANR. versus WAZIR SINGH

Decided
11 March 2002
Judges listed
S. RAJENDRA BABU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 380 · 2002 INSC 132

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

C.A.No. 3221 of 2000

p. 381, margin D

The respondent brought a suit on the basis of certain instructions issued by the appellant-Board for absorption of daily-wage workers to work-charged establishment who had completed 500 days of service. While the Trial Court did not have the benefit of the circular, the appellate court did have the benefit of that circular dated 19.9.1991. The Trial Court, however, decreed the suit.

p. 381, margin D

In the appeal, the appellate court noticed that the respondent in each of these cases had completed 500 days as daily-wage worker by the cut-off date, which had been extended from time to time. Thus it was found that the respondent in each of the cases was entitled to be absorbed as work-charged worker. But the appellant-Board had not considered his case while passing the order impugned in the suit and, therefore, he was entitled to be absorbed as work-charged worker by conversion from daily wage worker to the workcharged establishment.

p. 381, margin E

The matter was carried in second appeal to the High Court. The principal contention put forth before the High Court is that not only the daily wage worker should have 500 days ' of service by the cut-off date but also must continue to be in the service of the Board on the date of issuance of the circular. The High Court, however, found that there was no stipulation that such a daily wage worker should be actually in service on the date of issuance of the circular and on that basis dismissed the second appeal. Hence, this appeal by special leave. .

pp. 381–382, margin G

The relevant portion of the circular dated 19 .9 .1991 reads as follows: "The matter regarding conversion of daily wage workers into workcharge has been reviewed by the Board and it has been decided that all daily wage workers who have put in 500 working days in the service of the Board upto thirteenth September eighty eight [30.9.88] and are continuing in service of Board shall be eligible to be converted into work-charge workers. These conversions will be subject to availability of work charge posts and no further appointments will be made on daily wage basis."

p. 382, margin A

The High Court read the circular only upto the cut-off date and not thereafter. The latter part, which cle3.!"lY states ''and are continuing in service of Board" in order to become eligible to be converted into work charged employees was lost sight of by the High Court. Therefore, it was held that the sole condition to be fulfilled was that the daily wage worker should have put in 500 working days upto the cut-off date. That interpretation will not be correct in the circumstances of the case, when two conditions had been imposed; firstly that the concerned daily wage worker should not only put in 500 working days in service upto the cut-off date, and secondly, should be in continuous service upto the date of issuance of the circular in order to become eligible to be converted into work charged employees. The. second aspect could not have been ignored at all.

p. 382, margin C

The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the order made by the High Court is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on this aspect of the matter with reference to facts arising in the case.

p. 382, margin E

CA. Nos. 322312000, 322212000, 322912000 & 323012000.

p. 382, margin F

The question raised in each of these appeals is in identical ~o that of C.A. No. 3321/2000. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, these appeals are allowed in the same terms as set forth therein. S.K.S. Appeals allowed.

p. 382, margin F