The court recognized the importance of practical realities over contractual labels in determining employee status, concluding that long-term employees performing core duties are entitled to regularization and appropriate compensation if wrongfully classified.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, dated 11.06.2010 made in I.D.No.74 of 2007. By the said award, the Labour Court rejected the claim of the workman that his services be regularised.

2. The brief background of this Writ Petition is that the management is a General Insurance Company, a public sector undertaking. It has a guest house in Coimbatore. By the agreement dated 09.09.1986, the services of the workman, D.Packiriswamy, was engaged as a Caretaker by the management. An agreement was established, in which, the Caretaker was to provide the services specified and would be entitled to remuneration as detailed in the agreement. Consequently, the workman, Packiriswamy, functioned as the Caretaker. Following his appointment, his basic pay was revised to Rs.875/- and the applicable D.A. began to be paid from 01.01.1989. Periodically, his pay and allowances were adjusted. The contract was also formalized in writing for various periods.

3. Regarding a similarly situated caretaker, C.Gnanam, who was employed at another general insurance company, the New India Assurance Company, the workman raised a dispute concerning regularization in I.D.No.20 of 1997. This dispute was successful, and ultimately, C.Gnanam's services were regularized by the New India Assurance Company. The workman claims that, despite his duties being regular and perennial and having worked for about 21 years with the hope of being regularized, the management did not provide him with the same treatment. Meanwhile, several other staff members in subordinate positions, such as Daftary, Electrician, Lift Man, Driver, and Watchman, were regularized. Although the petitioner received wages equivalent to those of regular sub-staff, along with periodic annual increments and other allowances — including salary arrears and revisions — the formal order for the workman’s regularization was not granted. Under these circumstances, the workman, through the petitioner trade union, raised a dispute under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D Act'). Conciliation efforts failed, and the appropriate Government subsequently referred the matter for adjudication by the Tribunal in the order, dated 01.11.2007, which outlined the following terms:

"Whether the demand of All India General Insurance Congress for regularization of Sri D.Packiriswamy by the management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is just and fair? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

Thereafter, the Claim Petition is filed by the workman on the above lines.

4. The claim is resisted by the management. It is the primary case of the management that the management is a public sector undertaking. Any recruitment can only be in a sanctioned post. The procedure for recruitment should be followed by public advertisement and also by following the rules of reservation and following the recruitment rules. As far as the post of Caretaker is concerned, there is no such post in the respondent organisation. The maintenance of the guest house is not the regular activi