TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petition, 34 petitioners who were daily wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society ) had prayed for regularization of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Board . It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3.4.1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 3.4.1997 is Annexure P-2 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udge. 9. The writ petitioners who were daily wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4.5.1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board in the same manner and position . In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28.11.1996. 10. In our opinion, the proceeding dated 3.4.1997 makes it clear that the employees of the Society should be deemed to be the employees of the Electricity Board with continuity of their service in the Society, and it is not that they would be treated as fresh appointees by the Electricity Board when their services were taken over by the Electricity Board. In this vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, 1901 AC 495: Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. (19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. 16. We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that often Uma Devi s case (supra) is being applied by Courts mechanically as if it were a Euclid s formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University (supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hence, in our opinion, Uma Devi s case (supra) cannot be app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment must act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be violated. Maneka Gandhi s case (supra) is a decision of a seven-Judge Bench, whereas Uma Devi s case (supra) is a decision of a five-Judge Bench of this Court. It is well settled that a smaller bench decision cannot override a larger bench decision of the Court. No doubt, Maneka Gandhi s case (supra) does not specifically deal with the question of regularization of government employees, but the principle of reasonableness in executive action and the law which it has laid down, in our opinion, is of general application. 19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
