Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court delivered a significant ruling addressing the dispute surrounding the termination and subsequent claim for regularisation by a worker who had been engaged on a temporary basis for several years. The Court observed that denial of regularisation after prolonged service, while simultaneously continuing to engage the worker in a precarious manner, amounted to unfair labour practice and violation of constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. It concluded that the worker was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, though back wages were limited.
Facts
The petitioner had been engaged for several years on a casual/temporary basis in a government-controlled establishment. Despite the nature of the work being permanent, his services were never regularised. Subsequently, his employment was terminated, leading him to challenge the action before the Labour Court. The Labour Court initially ruled in his favour, directing reinstatement with certain benefits. However, the respondent-employer challenged this award before the High Court, arguing that the petitioner was not entitled to regularisation or reinstatement. This triggered prolonged litigation that ultimately reached the present stage before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether long-term engagement on a temporary basis amounts to unfair labour practice warranting regularisation.
- Whether the petitioner, having worked for several years, was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
- To what extent constitutional principles of equality and dignity of labour should be enforced in cases of termination of workers engaged in government establishments.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that his engagement was continuous and against a post of permanent nature, even though it was labelled as temporary. He contended that the employer could not take advantage of its own wrong by denying him regularisation despite availing his services for years. He relied on the constitutional mandate of equality before law, highlighting that similarly placed employees had been granted regularisation. The denial of such benefit to him, despite long years of service, was violative of Articles 14 and 21. Further, he contended that his termination was arbitrary and amounted to victimisation, justifying reinstatement with full back wages.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent establishment contended that the petitioner had no vested right to seek regularisation as his appointment was temporary and not in accordance with statutory rules. It was argued that regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the petitioner’s claim was contrary to binding precedents of the Supreme Court restricting regularisation of irregular appointees. The respondents further argued that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement since the petitioner’s appointment itself was not through proper procedure, and any direction for continuity would amount to bypassing recruitment norms.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the principles governing regularisation of workers in public employment. It relied on Article 14, which mandates fairness and non-arbitrariness, and Article 21, which protects the right to livelihood. The Court also examined provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, noting that “retrenchment” of a worker engaged in permanent work on a so-called temporary basis without compliance of statutory requirements is unlawful.
The judgment reconciled the competing principles of ensuring fair opportunity in public employment and preventing exploitation of workers under the guise of temporary or casual appointments. It emphasised that while wholesale regularisation cannot be ordered contrary to recruitment rules, courts must intervene where exploitation and unfair labour practice are evident.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) – The Court acknowledged the principle laid down in Umadevi that irregular appointees cannot be automatically regularised, but clarified that the case did not bar relief in cases where long years of service and unfair treatment are proven.
- BSNL v. Bhurumal (2014) – Cited for the proposition that reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic, and relief must balance equities.
- State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) – Relied upon to reinforce the principle of equal pay for equal work and constitutional protection to employees similarly placed.
The Court noted that these precedents, when read together, allow courts to grant reinstatement and continuity where injustice is apparent, but back wages may be moderated.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner had been continuously engaged for several years in a role that was permanent in nature, yet was denied the benefit of regularisation while his services were arbitrarily terminated. This, according to the Court, was a clear instance of unfair labour practice. The Court clarified that Umadevi cannot be read as a charter for exploitation and that courts cannot be silent spectators when fundamental rights are denied under the guise of temporary employment.
At the same time, the Court balanced equities by limiting back wages, reasoning that while reinstatement and continuity of service were justified, granting full back wages would impose an undue burden on the employer.
Conclusion
The Court upheld the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with continuity of service but modified the relief concerning back wages by restricting them to a reasonable proportion. It emphasised that the right to livelihood and dignity of labour are integral to constitutional protections and that employers, especially government-controlled bodies, must act fairly and not perpetuate exploitation through prolonged temporary appointments.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that while regularisation cannot be claimed as an automatic right, prolonged temporary employment against permanent posts cannot be sustained in law. It provides significant protection to workers against arbitrary termination and signals that courts will not hesitate to intervene where exploitation is evident. The ruling will have implications for numerous similarly placed employees in government-controlled establishments across India, ensuring that the shield of Umadevi is not misused to deny justice.
FAQs
1. Can temporary employees claim regularisation as a matter of right?
No. Regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, if a worker has been engaged for several years in a permanent role under unfair labour practices, courts may grant reinstatement and continuity.
2. Does reinstatement always include full back wages?
Not necessarily. Courts balance equities and may restrict back wages depending on the facts. In this case, reinstatement and continuity of service were granted, but back wages were limited.
3. How does this judgment affect other temporary workers in government bodies?
It strengthens the position of long-serving temporary employees, clarifying that courts will protect against exploitation and arbitrary termination while balancing the principles of fair recruitment.
