The Court ruled that misclassification of employees to circumvent benefits is unlawful, reaffirming protections against exploitation and establishing that continuous service entitles employees to full benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot,J.

1. Heard Sri Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakhar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 the claim of the petitioner for grant of wages in consonance with the government order dated 02.03.2015 has been declined on the footing that the petitioner is an out sourced employee w.e.f. 24.02.2020.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the year 1992- 93. The services of the petitioner in the respondent corporation has been continuous and without any break.

4. The government order dated 02.03.2015 under which petitioner claims entitlement to higher wages is extracted hereunder:-

5. The eligibility of the petitioner for benefits under the aforesaid government order was affirmed by the respondent no. 2 by order dated 24.08.2017. The aforesaid order records that the petitioner and one Bal Krishna Yadav are entitled to the benefits of the aforesaid government order. The other similarly situated employee Bal Krishna Yadav has been extended the benefit of the aforesaid government order while the petitioner has been denied the same.

6. It transpires from the record that at a much later stage the petitioner was continued through the agency of a contractor. The Court has to tear the veil to examine whether outsourcing was done as a bonafide policy objective or was applied only as a device to exploit the workmen. The plea of outsourcing made in the counter affidavit is not bonafide, and outsourcing has been done in the instant case only to deprive the petitioner of his lawful claims. The Court cannot permit the employer to create devices to exploit the class of employees who fall under the Group D category.

7. The respondents have not furnished plausible reason for denying the benefits of the government order dated 24.08.2017 to him while granting the same to the employee with whom the petitioner claims parity. The action of the respondents in so denying the petitioner benefits of the aforesaid policy is discriminatory and in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. The law has set its face on exploitation of the said class of employees.

9. The Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs Union of India and others reported at MANU/SC/1403/2024 noticed the consequences of misclassifying employees to avoid providing benefits and to circumvent the claims of the employees. The relevant paras are quoted hereunder:

"24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation4 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While