.jpg)
SRINAGAR, Dec 15: High Court held that daily rated workers engaged prior to ban and working continuously with the department cannot be denied regularization on the pretext of being casual labourers & the court also said that the judgment of the apex court cannot be invoked to justify the perpetual temporary employment for permanent work.
An aggrieved employee was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in the Public Health Engineering Department and served continuously for over three decades there. After completing seven years of service, he sought regularization of his position under SRO-64 of 1994.
But, the authorities did not act on his request prompting him to approach the court in the year 2012. The court while allowing his plea directed the concerned department to consider his case and after consideration his claim for regularization has been rejected in the year 2022, giving the reason that he was engaged as a Casual Labourer and did not meet the criteria of SRO 64.
He approached the CAT bench challenging the rejection order, and the CAT allowed his plea and directed the government to regularize his services with consequential benefits.
Aggrieved by the said decision of CAT, the Government filed the writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the department’s detailed rejection order of 2022 as the claim of the employee has been validly rejected the regularization as he did not fulfil the criteria mandated under SRO-64 of 1994 as specific criteria relating to age, qualification, availability of vacancies and issuance of formal approval by the competent authority has not been considered by the CAT.
The court after hearing said that the department itself admitted that the aggrieved employee was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker on 2 September 1993 and had worked continuously for over three decades. Therefore, it was contrary to the 2022 rejection order, which had classified him as a ‘Casual Labourer’.
It was further observed that a worker’s status must be determined by the nature of their engagement i.e. consistent and uninterrupted work for a permanent need”, reads the judgment.
The bench observed that the Judgment of Supreme Court on which the department is relying, cannot be used as a shield to justify prolonged ad hoc, daily-wage, contractual, or outsourced employment where the work is permanent and the State has failed to undertake regular recruitment.
The court said, the long-term exploitation or denial of parity for identical work over extended periods is impermissible in law. Indian labour jurisprudence does not favour perpetual temporary employment for permanent work.
The court upheld the CAT verdict and said the Tribunal had correctly concluded that the respondent-employee was employed in July 1993 as Daily Rated Worker i.e. before the deadline of March 31,1994, therefore, he was eligible for regularization under SRO 64 and dismissed the plea of authorities.
|