The court emphasized the need for fair employment practices and the right to regularization for long-serving temporary employees, as per Supreme Court guidelines.

ORDER :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to an order passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated 09.02.2024 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Office Assistant in the third respondent institution.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been contended that the petitioner had been appointed as an Office Assistant in the third respondent institution on 07.04.1997. On 07.04.2004, nearly 7 years after the initial appointment, the third respondent had orally instructed that the petitioner should not enter office. Enquiry was not conducted and there was no allegation of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 27.07.2017, the petitioner again was permitted to joint duty as Office Assistant on daily wages basis. It is claimed that he continuously worked from 1997 to 2004 and again from 2017 till 13.03.2023 when he was again instructed not to attend duty. The petitioner claims that a right had arisen to him since he worked continuously for more than 480 days, that he should be regularised.

3. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the dates on which the petitioner had been working had been given in the form of tabular column. The same is as follows:

It had also been contended that the petitioner was working only through voucher payment on daily wages from August 2017 till November 2017 and thereafter from December 2017 till November 2018 he was out of employment and again from December 2018 till June 2019 he had been engaged on daily wages and from July 2019 till 10.03.2023 he was engaged through an outsourcing agency. It has been contended that the claim of the petitioner that he had been in continuous service is not correct and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner should be rejected by this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 (Jaggo vs. Union of India and others) wherein, while examining the plight of the workers who had been engaged on daily wages and regularisation had been denied, the Honble Supreme Court had drawn a distinction between those who had entered into service through back door which would be called as improper employment and those who had been engaged on daily wages on normal basis and work had been exploited. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed and held as follows:

"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

Arbitrary Termination:Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subje