2025 Supreme(SC) 265

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Shripal and Another – Appellants
Versus
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 8158-8179 of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Regularisation – Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where work is permanent in nature – Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in absence of a genuine contractor agreement – Bureaucratic limitations cannot trump legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
(2) Uma Devi [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1] cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.

Headnote:

(A) Labour and Industrial Law – Regularisation – While Appellant Workmen were pressing for regularization and proper wages through pending conciliation proceedings, Respondent Employer proceeded to discontinue their services, without issuing prior notice or granting retrenchment compensation – Any unilateral alteration in service conditions, including termination, is impermissible during pendency of such proceedings unless prior approval is obtained from appropriate authority – Record in present case does not indicate that Respondent Employer ever sought or was granted requisite approval – Prima facie, this conduct reflects deliberate attempt to circumvent lawful claims of workmen, particularly when their dispute over regularization and wages remained subjudice – Any termination effected without statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly – Employer’s stance that there was never a direct employer-employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated. [Section 6E of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947] (Paras 8, 9 and 10)

(B) Labour and Industrial Law – Regularisation – Evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to Respondent Employer’s municipal functions specifically upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts – Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based – Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labour protections to long-serving workmen – By requiring same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice – Principle of “equal pay for equal work,” cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees – Long-standing assignments under Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements – Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)

(C) Labour and Industrial Law – Regularisation – Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade – Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where work is permanent in nature – Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in absence of a genuine contractor agreement – Employer’s discontinuation of Appellant Workmen stands in violation of most basic labour law principles – Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty – While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements – Bureaucratic limitations cannot trump legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period – Impugned order of High Court, to the extent they confine Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, hereby set aside – Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes including seniority and continuity in service – Considering length of service, Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. [Sections 6E and 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947] (Paras 15, 17 and 18)

Facts of the case:

Both Appellant Workmen and Respondent Employer have now approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. Workmen primarily seek full reinstatement with back wages and a direction to secure their regularization, whereas Respondent Employer seeks to quash modifications ordered by High Court on the ground that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting partial relief akin to regular employees, contrary to constitutional provisions and State’s ban on recruitment.

Findings of Court:

Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing Appellant Workmen within six months from date of reinstatement, duly considering fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these long-time employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.

Result : Appeals allowed.