Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, K. KUMARESH BABU, JJ.
R. Iyyappan – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. No. 31674 of 2019
Decided On : 08-07-2024
Employment - Gang Labourers - Article 14, 21, 23 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the validity of the 'Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme' and its compliance with previous judicial orders, emphasizing the lack of a fundamental right to regularization and the adherence to constitutional mandates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employed as daily wage Gang Labourers for 14 to 26 years, challenged the validity of a scheme that denied them regularization and benefits, claiming it contradicted previous court orders for their absorption into permanent positions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the scheme was in compliance with prior judicial orders and that the petitioners had no legal right to regularization, as their initial employment did not follow proper recruitment procedures.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization and benefits under the scheme, and if the scheme violates constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is no fundamental right to regularization for daily wage employees, and the scheme was valid as it aligned with judicial directives and did not violate constitutional provisions.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 4th respondent relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 20.12.2018 passed in O.A. No. 326 of 2015 upholding the validity of the scheme, titled as “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme” of Department of Space, Government of India, 2012” dated 03.09.2012 impugned in the O.A. No. 326 of 2015 and quash the said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the said scheme and consequently to direct the first respondent to create adequate no. of posts retrospectively from the date of the initial appointments of the petitioners with time scale of pay on par with Group-D post, now upgraded to Group-C posts, and to regularize the services of the petitioners by appointing them retrospectively in the said posts from the date of their initial employment with all consequential monetary and service benefits, including arrears and pensionary benefits therefor and further to award appropriate compensation for exploiting the petitioners all these years.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') dated 20.12.2018 passed in O.A. No. 326 of 2015, in and by which the prayer of the petitioners to quash the Scheme titled as “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme” was negatived, holding that the applicants/petitioners herein are not entitled to get permanency/retrospective regularization or monetary benefits and that they are entitled to get benefits as per the Scheme.
Brief Facts in nutshell as put forth by the petitioners:
2. The Petitioners were employed under the 3rd respondent on daily wage basis continuously for more than 14 to 26 years basis and they worked without any blemish and also to the satisfaction of the respondents 1 to 3. According to the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 3, taking advantage of the poor economic condition of the petitioners and the unemployment situation, utilized their services and continued to treat them as daily waged persons, thereby denying benefits available to them and their service particulars as confirmed by the 3rd respondents are as follows:
| S. No. | Name and Date of Birth | Educational Qualification | Date from which working |
| 1. | R. Iyyappan | VII Std Fail | 09/08/1995 |
| 2. | P. Arumugam | IX Std Fail | 13/08/1991 |
| 3. | R. Shanmuga Ravi @ R. Ravi | VIII Std Pass | 06/05/1991 |
| 4. | V. Rajesh Kumar | IX Std Fail | 15/08/1995 |
| 5. | S. Suyambu | XII Std Fail | 28/07/1997 |
| 6. | P. Ravithurai @ P. Ravi | X Std Pass | 28/07/1997 |
| 7. | S.M. Neela Raman | VIII Std Pass | 20/07/1991 |
| 8. | R. Muthukumar | IX Std Fail | 17/02/1999 |
| 9. | S. Velu | V Std | 23/05/1994 |
2.1. The petitioners were forced to work even on Sundays and holidays and the respondents 1 to 3 did not fill up the sanctioned strength by framing appropriate rules, instead as per the policy of the 1st respondent, the petitioners were put to hard labour. The petitioners, on coming to know that the 1st respondent had framed a scheme for regularization of casual laborers with effect from 01.09.1993 in the year 2007, represented the 1st respondent to consider framing of such scheme in respect of them also. Since there was no response, they along with other similarly placed persons filed O.A. No. 455 of 2009, seeking regularization with all attendant and consequential benefits.
2.2. The respondents had filed their counter affidavit, wherein it was stated that the 3rd respondent is an independent body having its own recruitment policy; there is no employer-employee relationship in existence; they were engaged through token system and their nature of works was sporadic in nature,
AI
The court established that daily wage employees do not have a fundamental right to regularization, and compliance with recruitment norms is essential for such claims.
The Umadevi principle governs regularization of irregularly appointed employees, and any direction for regularization must be in line with this principle.
The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.
The High Court directed the regularization of long-serving employees based on the principles established in Umadevi's case, emphasizing the need for lawful government discretion in employment matters....
Employees who have worked for a considerable period of time cannot be denied regularisation, as it would violate their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal upheld that policy decisions regarding cut-off dates for regularization are valid unless arbitrary or discriminatory, reaffirming that earlier court rulings must guide eligibility for re....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for regularization, an employee must prove the legality of their initial appointment and cannot claim permanency based on 'legitimate expectat....
Regularization of service requires sanctioned vacancies, and proposals do not confer enforceable rights. Voluntary waivers significantly impact employee claims and equitable principles cannot overrid....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
