Govts Engaging Temporary Workers For Long Periods Unfair; ‘Uma Devi’ Judgment Being Misapplied Against Long-Serving Workers : Supreme Court

When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy”, the SC said.

The judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath also observed that the 2006 verdict in the landmark case Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi has been misunderstood and misapplied in many cases. 

“@While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.

@However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.”

@In the judgment, the Court also observed that government departments should not follow the exploitative practices prevalent in the gig economy

“In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.

@Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.”

@The Supreme Court has criticised the practice of government institutions engaging workers on a temporary basis for a prolonged period, which results in the infringement of various labour rights. The Court reminded that government entities must indulge in fair and just practices and refrain from exploitative employment practices.

@While allowing the regularisation of certain workers who were employed on a temporary basis for about 14-20 years by the Central Water Commission (CWC), a bench comprising Justice VikramNath and Prasanna B Varale observed :

“@..it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.”

@In this case, three appellants were appointed by the CWC as Safaiwala in 1998-99 and another appellant was appointed as Khallasi in 2004. Though their appointment was termed temporary, they worked continuously, discharging full-time duties. In 2015, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation. However, the application was rejected. Soon after the rejection, they were terminated from services in 2018, without any prior notice. They approached the Supreme Court after the CAT and the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the termination.

@The Supreme Court observed that despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit,  the Court said, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices.

“@The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled,” the Court said. Also, the fact that these jobs were outsourced to private agencies after the appellants were dismissed showed the essential nature of their jobs.

@The abrupt termination of the appellants’ services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice,” the Court said. The Court reminded that even contractual employees have the right to notice.