NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale quashed the orders by Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, terminating services of gardners in 2005, despite their continuous engagement since 1998 through the horticulture department. The workmen were not served any notice, written orders, or retrenchment compensation.
SC Orders Regularisation: Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam Must Reinstate Gardners
The bench found the discontinuation of the appellant workmen stood in violation of the most basic labour law principles.
Allowing appeal by Shripal and others, the bench also relied upon its judgment in 'Jaggo Vs Union of India' (2024), which said, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. The court had then also expressed its concern over a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often faced multifaceted forms of exploitation.
Equal Pay for Equal Work: Supreme Court Upholds Workers’ Rights
Terming the action by the Nagar Nigam as unfair labour practice, court directed for regularising their services within six months of their engagements and ordered the municipal corporation to pay them 50% back wages.
The court said the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasised by this court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees.
"Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement," the bench said.
The court also felt the bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration but it would not absolve the employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements, it said.
The bench also said, long-standing assignments under the employer’s direct supervision in the case belied any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements.
Citing Section 6E of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the bench said any unilateral alteration in service conditions, including termination, is impermissible.
It noted the Nagar Nigam's conduct showed a deliberate attempt to circumvent the lawful claims of the workmen, particularly when their dispute over regularisation and wages remained sub judice.
The bench said its previous judgment in 'Uma Devi Vs State of Karnataka' cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
