By: Sonika[1]
In the Supreme Court of India
| NAME OF THE CASE | Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass |
| CITATION | (2008) 1 SCC 683 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | Dec 6th, 2007 |
| APPELLANTS | Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another |
| RESPONDENTS | Chander Hass and Another |
| BENCH/JUDGE | A. K. Mathur & Markandey Katju |
| STATUES/CONSTITUTION INVOLVED | Constitution of India |
| IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES | Constitution of India- Article 32 |
ABSTRACT
The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were appointed as Mali by the appellants, which is a golf club run by the Haryana Tourism Corporation for the years 1989 and 1988 on a daily wage. Later on, in 1989, they were instructed to perform the tasks of a tractor driver, even though there was no such position available at their employer’s firm. They were, however, paid for the position of a Mali for a number of years. After a few years, the appellants started to pay them daily wages as tractor drivers. Although the respondents worked for around a decade as tractor drivers, their services were regularised under the post of Mali instead of as tractor drivers. The respondents subsequently filed a civil suit seeking to have their posts as tractor drivers regularised. The Additional District Judge and the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favour of the respondents. So, the appellants are challenging these orders in this appeal to the Supreme Court.[2]
INTRODUCTION
A person whose rights have been violated or infringed can seek proper redress from the Court. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has writ jurisdiction to enforce or protect an individual’s fundamental rights. It allows all Indian citizens to move to our country’s Apex Court in case of violation of their Fundamental Rights. Article 32 mentions five types of writs: writ of habeas corpus; prohibition; mandamus; certiorari; and quo-warranto.[3]
A writ is a court’s instrument or order through which the court commands an individual, official, or authority to do or to refrain from doing something.
An appeal is a request to a higher court to review a lower court’s judgment. They serve as a process for error correction as well as clarification or interpretation of the law. Only a person who was a party to the case before the lower court can file an appeal and request a formal change to a decision or order. The individual who files an appeal is known as an appellant, and the court in question is known as the appellate court. It may only be submitted if the law expressly authorizes it, and it should be filed in a specific manner.[4]
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
- The respondents were appointed as a Mali (gardener) on a daily wage, and later on, they were given the work of a tractor driver, in spite of the fact that there was no post of a tractor driver at the club. For a while, the respondents were still being paid as a Mali, so they asked for their wages to be given according to the work of a tractor driver.
- At the suggestion of the Head Office, the appellants began paying them tractor driver salaries on a daily basis at the rates proposed by the Deputy Commissioner. Though they continued to work as tractor drivers for approximately a decade, their services were regularised against the post of Mali in 1999, not as tractor drivers.[5]
- When their dispute was not resolved despite representations, the respondents herein filed a civil complaint, requesting regularisation of their positions as tractor drivers.[6]
- The Trial Court rejected their claim, observing that there was no position for a tractor driver in the company, and the complaint was dismissed. The Trial Court determined that driving a tractor is an essential aspect of Mali’s job at a Golf Club since the Golf Field is extensive and requires maintenance with the help of mechanical gadgets.[7]
- The respondents then filed an appeal against the Trial Courts’ decision to dismiss the complaint before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. The court noted that the defendants had been taking the plaintiffs’ tractor driver service since 13/8/1999, and hence instructed the defendants to get the tractor driver position sanctioned and to regularise the plaintiffs on that post.[8]
- Following that, the Divisional Manager of Aravali Golf Club filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The learned Single Judge ruled that the job of tractor driver should be created as there is no reason not to, especially because tractors were available and there was a need to use such tractors. The learned Judge further stated that the State authorities cannot be allowed to oppress persons and reject their legitimate rights only on the basis of technicalities. As a result, the second appeal was dismissed, and the First Appellate Court’s judgment was upheld.[9]
- Dissatisfied with the mentioned decision the appellants filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether regularization of services can be done for a post that has been sanctioned to be created?
- Whether the courts have the authority to create a post that is not officially mentioned by the corporation?
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANTS SIDE
- The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no sanctioned post of a tractor driver, hence there is no question of the respondents being appointed as a tractor driver.[10]
- The counsel for the respondents has also not been able to show or prove that there are any sanctioned posts of tractor driver in the appellant’s establishment.[11]
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENTS SIDE
- The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents had been appointed as a Mali on a daily wage but later on worked as tractor drivers in the appellant’s company.[12]
- The counsel claimed that the respondents were paid for the position of a Mali for several years.
- Despite working as a tractor driver, the respondent’s services got regularised on the post of a Mali instead of a tractor driver.
RELATED PROVISIONS/SECTIONS
Constitution of India
- Article 32: – Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. —
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.[13]
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.[14]
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).[15]
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.[16]
JUDGMENT
The court ruled that since there is no authorized post of tractor driver against which the respondents could be regularized as a tractor driver, the decision of the first appellate court and the learned Single Judge to create the post of tractor driver and regularise the services of the respondents against the newly created posts was completely beyond their jurisdiction. The court cannot order the creation of new posts as this is a function of the executive or legislative authorities.[17]
As a result, the appeal is granted, and the judgments and orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court are reversed, while the Trial Court’s decision is upheld.
Judges must exhibit judicial restraint and refrain from interfering with the executive or legislative functions as seen in Indian Drugs & PharmaceuticalsLtd. v. Workmen[18] and S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand[19].
In the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India[20], this Court observed that the modern trend pointed to judicial restraint in administrative action. A similar view has been taken in a number of other rulings, although it is regrettable that many courts do not follow these decisions and instead attempt to fulfil legislative or executive tasks. The court shouldn’t embarrass the administrative authorities and should realise that the court doesn’t have expertise in the field of administration, unlike the administrative authorities.
In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab[21], the bench of this Court observed that “The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can very well be said that our Constitution does not contemplate assumption by one organ or part of the State, of functions that essentially belong to another.”
Similarly, in the Asif Hameed v. State of J&K[22] decision, the court discussed the functions of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. The Constitution makers have clearly defined the various functions of the organs of the State. The legislature, executive, and judiciary have to operate within the boundaries established by the Constitution.
Before dismissing the case, the Bench noted that “in the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State.”[23]
CONCLUSION
The court frequently came across cases in which the judges were unlawfully attempting to perform executive or legislative responsibilities. This is unconstitutional. Judges cannot, under the guise of judicial activism, attempt to take over tasks that belong to another organ of the State. They must recognize their limitations and refrain from attempting to rule the government. They must be modest and humble, and not act like Emperors[24]. There is a clear separation of powers between the three wings of the parliament, namely the legislative, executive, and judicial, and one must not hinder with the operation of the other.
Judges should never behave as activists, crossing their boundaries and take away the powers of the other two, as this is unlawful. It is not appropriate for any of the three organs of the state to trespass on the jurisdiction of another; otherwise, the delicate balance of the Constitution will be disrupted, and a reaction will occur. The principle of judicial restraint requires equality between the other two organs and shields one from the other. This notion also safeguards the independence of the judiciary. The main goal is that neither party abuse’s the other parties’ authorities and functions.[25]
[1] Author is a 3rd semester student of Amity Law School, Lucknow.
[2] 2007 SCC Online SC 1478.
[3] Ramanjeet, Constitutional philosophy of Writs: A detailed analysis, Legal Service India (July 14, 2022, 7 PM), http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1885/Constitutional-philosophy-of-Writs:-A-detailed-analysis.html.
[4] Adv Chikirsha Mohanty, How to Appeal in Supreme Court?, LawRato (July 14, 2022, 7:22 PM), https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/supreme-court-law/how-to-appeal-in-supreme-court-2882.
[5] 2007 SCC Online SC 1478 at page 686.
[6] Id.
[7] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47602/ (Last visited July 14, 2022).
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] 2007 SCC Online SC 1478 at page 688.
[11] Id.
[12] 2007 SCC Online SC 1478 at page 687.
[13] INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl. 1.
[14] INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl. 2.
[15] INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl. 3.
[16] INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl. 4.
[17] Supra note 10.
[18] Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408.
[19] S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279.
[20] Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11.
[21] Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
[22] Asif Hameed v. State of J&K, AIR 1989 SC 1899.
[23] Supra note 10.
[24] Risha Kulshrestha, Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Ors. Vs. Chander Hass and Ors. – Case Summary, Law Times Journal (July 13, 2022, 3:30 PM), https://lawtimesjournal.in/divisional-manager-aravali-golf-club-and-ors-vs-chander-hass-and-ors-case-summary/.
[25] Purti Srivastava, case summary: DM ARAVALLI GOLF CLUB and; Ors. Vs. CHANDER HASS and; Ors., Aishwarya Sandeep (July 14, 2022, 3:30 PM), https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2021/09/18/case-summary-dm-aravalli-golf-club-and-ors-vs-chander-hass-and-ors/.
