On December 20, 2024, Supreme Court observed:"It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination:Employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield:Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
In Jaggo & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has taken note of the misapplication of its earlier ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006).
The Court observed that while the judgment in Uma Devi case "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."
Mrs. Jaggo and three others, the appellants served the Central Water Commission (CWC) for extended periods ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Initially engaged on part-time and ad-hoc terms, their roles included sweeping, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks essential to the day-today functioning of the CWC.
Following the dismissal of their application for regularization by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), their services were abruptly terminated in 2018.
The bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of Delhi High Court upheld CAT's decision, citing their contractual nature of engagement. It relied on the decision in Uma Devi case. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal’s decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the workers who are the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court observed: “The appellants’ work was not sporadic or incidental but integral and continuous for over a decade. To label such engagement as ‘temporary’ while simultaneously outsourcing the same duties reveals an inherent contradiction in the respondents’ stance."
Significantly, the Court observed: "Labels such as ‘temporary’ or ‘contractual’ cannot override the substantive nature of the work performed over decades.” It added: “The essence of employment lies not in its initial terms but in the reality of continuous service and indispensable duties.”
The Court relied on a decision of a US Court in Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation (1996) which 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.
The 29 page long judgement was authored by Justice Vikram Nath. The Court set aside the decisions of the High Court and the Tribunal. Its direction reads: The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith.However,the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits."
In the penultimate paragraph, the Court's judgement states: "in our opinion, 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. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
Dr. Gopal Krishna
No comments:
Post a Comment