Supreme Court Defends Long-Serving Contractual Workers, Orders Regularization
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment affirming the rights of long-serving employees engaged on ad-hoc or contractual terms. In Jaggo & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale criticized the misuse of its earlier ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) and ordered the reinstatement and regularization of workers at the Central Water Commission (CWC).
Key Takeaways
The case involved four workers—Smt. Jaggo and others—who served the CWC for over a decade in roles like cleaning, gardening, and maintenance. Initially employed on part-time and ad-hoc terms, their services were abruptly terminated in 2018. After their pleas for regularization were dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court, they approached the Supreme Court.
The Court highlighted several critical issues:
1. Misuse of the Uma Devi Judgment
The Court clarified that Uma Devi aimed to prevent illegal backdoor appointments, not to deny rightful regularization to employees performing essential tasks for years. It condemned the arbitrary denial of regularization for the appellants, whose work was integral and continuous.
2. Nature of Duties
Cleaning, dusting, and maintenance tasks, performed daily for over a decade, were deemed indispensable and akin to regular posts. Labeling such roles as “temporary” or “ad-hoc” was deemed contradictory.
3. Violation of Natural Justice
The termination letters were issued without prior notice or explanation, violating basic principles of fairness. The Court emphasized that even contractual workers deserve a fair hearing before termination.
4. Discriminatory Practices
Evidence showed that less qualified and less experienced employees had been regularized, underscoring arbitrary and unfair treatment toward the appellants.
5. Educational Qualifications
The respondents’ argument about the appellants’ lack of qualifications was dismissed. The Court held that qualifications not enforced during decades of service could not retroactively be used to deny rights.
6. Outsourcing as Evasion
The Court criticized the outsourcing of appellants' tasks during judicial proceedings, calling it a deliberate attempt to evade regularization while acknowledging the necessity of their roles.
Supreme Court’s Orders
1. Quashing Termination Orders: The termination orders from 2018 were invalidated as arbitrary and unjust.
2. Reinstatement and Regularization: The workers were ordered to be reinstated immediately and their services regularized, recognizing their indispensable contributions.
3. Post-Retirement Benefits: While back wages were denied, the intervening period was counted for post-retirement benefits.
Observations on Fair Employment Practices
The Court underscored the need for fairness in employment, emphasizing that long-standing contributions cannot be undermined by labels like “contractual” or “temporary.” It called on government departments to act as model employers and ensure stability for employees performing essential duties.
This judgment reaffirms the rights of contractual workers and challenges discriminatory practices in employment, setting a significant precedent for fair labor practices in India.
