Casual laborers cannot seek regularization and equal benefits as permanent employees without complying with the conditions laid down in the Umadevi judgment.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.— (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, seven petitioners who were casual labourers of the respondent No.1-Central Warehousing Corporation claim the following reliefs:

“i) issue and appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the interest of justice;

ii) issue and appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay equal wages for equal work to the petitioners at par to the operators who are regular and permanent.

iii) pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The prayer clause (ii) is effectively to say that wages which should be granted should be as per the permanent employees of the Central Warehousing Corporation.

3. The case of the petitioners can be best understood by their synopsis and list of dates of events which reads as under:-

“SYNOPSIS AND DATES OF EVENTS

The petitioners have been appointed by the respondent Corporation as their casual workers and since the date of their appointment the petitioners have been working with the respondent corporation continuously. That the respondent corporation has been awarded a contract of the pest and rodent control services at the Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi. The respondent corporation deputed the petitioners to do the job at the Airport pursuant to the aforesaid contract. That the petitioners have been issued identity cards so that they may enter the premises of the Airport on the basis of being workers of the respondents corporation and the Corporation has also admitted the fact that the petitioners are their casual workers by way of certifying their date of appointment as well as their date of retirement.

That the petitioners despite being employees of the respondent corporation are not getting the minimum prescribed wages and also not getting equal wages and other benefits which are available to other employees of the respondent corporation. The petitioners are also not getting their services regularized. When the petitioners demanded for these benefits, the respondent corporation are now trying to throw them out and trying to fill up their vacancies by the workers to be supplied by the private contract labour suppliers. Hence this writ petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Court.” (underlining added)

4. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Umadevi & Ors. 2006(4) SCC 1 has laid down the following ratio with regard to recruitment for public employment:-

(i) The questions to be asked before regularization are:-

(a) (i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire),

(ii) is there a vacancy,

(iii) are the persons qualified persons and

(iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of calling all possible persons and which process involves inter-se competition among the candidates (b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter.

(ii). For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14,16,309, 315, 320 etc is violated.

(iii). In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular