Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ, KARDAK ETE, J.
Vartak Labour Union - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 117 of 2025
Decided On : 14-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Mazumdar
For the Respondent: R.K.D. Choudhury
The court affirmed that the regularization of casual workers must adhere to existing Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that no distinctions can be made in their classification, which rests with the Union's discretion under established regulations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Constitution - Article 226 - Regularization of Casual Labourers - The appellant, aggrieved by refusal to regularize services, contested a prior order that upheld the Union of India's stance against it, citing impracticability and existing Supreme Court rulings - The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a scheme for regularization but did not mandate it, allowing the Union discretion in funding and employment allocations. (Paras 6-9)
(B) Judicial Precedents - Authority of Supreme Court - Lower courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions; no new distinctions can be made post-judgment, reinforcing the principle of judicial discipline. (Paras 22-25)
(C) Employment Law - The status of casual workers cannot be altered without a regulatory framework; the court echoed findings that all casual workers fall under a broad category without sub-classifications based on nature of employment. (Paras 20-24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to quash a 2012 endorsement refusing regularization of casual workers, previously engaged over five years, upheld by both High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge did not grant relief, standing by the Supreme Court's precedent that no distinction can be made for operational Casual Labourers.
Issues: The core issue was whether the casual workers' claims for regularization could be differentiated based on their employment type following Supreme Court precedent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that the matter was settled by the Supreme Court’s judgments, reaffirming that the status of casual laborers cannot be altered without a proper scheme in place.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal filed against prior judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. background facts regarding casual labourers' regularization. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. single judge's observations on non-regularization. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's decision to dismiss the appeal. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ.
1. This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6609/2013 and other 2(two) connected writ petitions. The appellant in WP(C) No.6609/2013 has prayed for the following relief:-
“In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to issue notice on the respondents to show cause as to why this Hon’ble Court should not issue a writ thereby quashing endorsement dated 07-09-2012 issued by the respondent no.3 and further direct the respondents to initiate appropriate steps within a stipulated time frame to consider the members of the petitioner union for regularization of their services and upon consideration of the causes shown, if any, and upon hearing the parties and on perusal of records, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/orders quashing the impugned endorsement dated 07-09-2012 issued by the respondent no.3 and further direct the respondents to initiate appropriate steps within a stipulated time frame to consider the members of the petitioner union for regularization of their services in accordance with the law and or be pleased to pass such other order, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the members of the appellant Union, who are working as Casual Labourers in Border Roads Organization (BRO) had filed Civil Rule No.1893/1993 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 27.08.1996, whereby directions were passed by the learned Single Judge to take steps for regularization of the services of the members of the appellant Union, who had rendered more than 5(five) years in service. The said directions were required to be complied with within a period of6(six) months from the date of passing of the order by the Writ Court. The Union of India assailed the said order passed by the learned Single Judge by way of a writ appeal, which came to be disposed of by issuing direction to the Union of India to consider the case of the employees, who are working in the Organization for more than 5(five) years, in view of the Circulars holding the field for regularization of their services, with further direction that the casual labourers so engaged shall be allowed to continue to work in the Organization till they attain their eligibility for coming within the purview of the Circular holding the field for regularization of their services.
3. The said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the said challenge vide order dated 19.02.1999 and remanded back the matter to this Court by restoring the writ appeal filed by the Union of India to reconsider the same on merits. This Court, in turn, has disposed of the said writ appeal vide order dated 27.03.2001 directing the Union of India to consider the cases of the members of the appellant Union in terms of the Scheme contained in the Office Memorandum dated 02.02.2001 and to consider the cases of the Casual Paid Labourers thereunder for regular recruitment to the post in Grade-D of the Border Roads Organization. The review petition preferred by the Union of India before the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed and being aggrieved, with the same, the Union of India has assailed the order passed by the Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Suprem
