Statutory power and public employment regularisation: authority cannot exceed the Act, and permanency needs sanctioned posts.

Statutory authorities must act within the powers conferred by the Central Excise and Salt Act and Rules; an arrangement for supervising salt platforms and recovering wages through a special cess had no demonstrated statutory basis and was invalid. Regularisation of workmen cannot confer permanency in the absence of sanctioned posts, and public employment must comply with Articles 14 and 16; long service cannot validate appointments made outside the prescribed framework. The text also notes that while permanent absorption was not justified, limited monetary and service protections such as minimum wages could still be directed on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assistant Salt Commissioner had statutory authority under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to arrange supervision of salt platforms and recover wages through a special cess; (ii) whether the workmen were entitled to regularisation and other service benefits in the absence of sanctioned posts and compliance with the constitutional requirements of equality in public employment.

Issue (i): whether the Assistant Salt Commissioner had statutory authority under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to arrange supervision of salt platforms and recover wages through a special cess.

Analysis: Rule 129 obliges the licensee to maintain the salt platform and Rule 130 permits the Department to undertake such work only when the licensee fails to do so or with the sanction of the Central Government. The arrangement under which the Department supervised the work for a group of licensees and recovered a special cess had no demonstrated statutory basis. Actions of statutory authorities must remain confined to the authority conferred by the statute, and an arrangement beyond that framework cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellant's arrangement was beyond statutory power and therefore invalid.

Issue (ii): whether the workmen were entitled to regularisation and other service benefits in the absence of sanctioned posts and compliance with the constitutional requirements of equality in public employment.

Analysis: Regularisation does not create permanency in the absence of sanctioned posts. Public employment must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and appointments made outside the prescribed legal framework cannot be validated merely by long service. At the same time, the finding that an employer-employee relationship existed was treated as a finding of fact. In the peculiar facts, the workmen could not claim permanent absorption, but they were entitled to minimum wages and such other limited consequential reliefs as directed.

Conclusion: Regularisation as permanent employees was not justified, but limited monetary and service protections were warranted.

Final Conclusion: The award of the Labour Court was set aside and the appeal succeeded, while limited directions were issued to protect the workmen's continuing lawful entitlements.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority cannot create or continue employment arrangements beyond the powers conferred by the statute, and regularisation in public employment cannot be ordered to confer permanency unless sanctioned posts exist and the constitutional requirements governing public appointments are satisfied.

---