Daily Wage Workers Rendering Continuous Service Entitled to Regularization Benefits Despite Delay: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh - 2024-03-19

J&K High Court Upholds Rights of Long-Serving Daily Wage Worker: Retrospective Regularization Ordered

Jammu, India – In a significant judgment favoring employee rights, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a daily wage worker, who rendered continuous service for over seven years, is entitled to regularization benefits retrospectively, despite delays in raising the claim. The case involved a Security Guard employed at the University of Jammu who was initially engaged as a casual labourer in 1997 and regularized in 2010, but only with prospective effect.

Case Background: Delayed Regularization Claim

The petitioner, initially engaged as a casual labourer in 1997 and later as a Security Guard at the University of Jammu, was eventually regularized in March 2010. However, this regularization was with immediate effect, not from the date he completed seven years of service as per SRO 64 of 1994, a policy adopted by the University for regularization of daily-rated workers. The petitioner contended that under SRO 64, his regularization should have been effective from July 8, 2004, after completing seven years of continuous service. He represented this claim to the University in 2016, and upon facing inaction, filed a writ petition.

The University argued that the petition was filed after a six-year delay, rendering it ‘belated and hit by laches’. They also contended that the petitioner, being initially a ‘casual labourer’, was not strictly covered by SRO 64 of 1994, which primarily addressed ‘daily wagers’. The University claimed the regularization in 2010 was done as per its own policy for long-serving casual labourers and daily wagers.

Court's Observations: Power Imbalance and Justifiable Delay

Justice [Judge's name not explicitly mentioned in the text, implied from context] presiding over the case, acknowledged the University's delay argument but emphasized the power dynamics at play. The court observed, “In a case where a petty daily labourer, who after rendering long services has been regularized as a Security Guard, is pitted against a University, a mighty statutory body, it is the University with all bargaining power that will be in a dominating position.”

The judgment further highlighted the vulnerability of such employees, noting, “In such situation, a petty employee like daily wager or Security Guard shall be left with no option but to accept the terms and conditions of employment dictated by his employer.” The court deemed the delay in approaching the court justifiable, recognizing the employee's potential fear of reprisal for challenging the employer's terms earlier.

Upholding Employee Rights and SRO 64

The court refuted the University’s distinction between ‘casual labourer’ and ‘daily wager’ in this context, citing a previous judgment which clarified that a person engaged for continuous service and paid daily wages cannot be termed ‘casual labour’ to deny regularization benefits.

The court stated, “It is, thus, beyond cavil of any debate that a person who is engaged temporarily and is paid wages at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time and continued to perform his duties for a continuous period of more than seven years cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as ‘ casual labour’ to deny him the benefit of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994”.

Verdict: Retrospective Regularization and Consequential Benefits

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the University of Jammu to regularize the petitioner as a Security Guard with effect from April 1, 2005 – the start of the financial year following his completion of seven years of service. The court further mandated that the petitioner receive “all consequential benefits including arrears of salary w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 till his actual regularization made in the year 2010” and that his pensionary benefits be revised accordingly, with any arrears to be paid within two months.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely regularization for daily wage workers and recognizes the often unequal power dynamic between employers and employees, especially in cases involving statutory bodies and vulnerable workers. It serves as a significant precedent for similar cases concerning labour rights and regularization in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.