Supreme Court Criticized Govt Institutions for Hiring Workers on Temporary Basis for Extended Time
The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the practice of government institutions employing workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, calling it a violation of labor rights. The Court emphasized that government entities should follow fair and just practices, avoiding exploitative employment conditions.
In a significant ruling, the Court allowed the regularization of certain workers employed on a temporary basis for 14 to 20 years by the Central Water Commission (CWC). A bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale stated that government departments should set an example by providing fair and stable employment. They highlighted that engaging workers on a temporary basis for long periods, especially when their roles are essential to the organization’s functioning, not only goes against international labor standards but also exposes the government to legal challenges and harms employee morale.
The Court further stated, “By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness they are meant to represent.”
Case Background
The case involved three workers appointed as Safaiwalas by the CWC in 1998-99, and one worker appointed as Khallasi in 2004. Though their appointments were labeled as temporary, they worked continuously, fulfilling full-time duties. In 2015, the workers sought regularization of their positions through the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but their application was rejected. After the rejection, they were terminated from their services in 2018 without prior notice. The workers then approached the Supreme Court after the CAT and the Delhi High Court refused to intervene.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court pointed out that despite being labeled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed essential tasks continuously for over a decade, with some working for nearly two decades. The Court rejected the claim that their posts were not regular, noting that their work was ongoing and fundamental to the operation of the offices.
The Court further emphasized that the nature of the work required these positions to be classified as regular posts, regardless of how they were initially described. The fact that the jobs were outsourced to private agencies after the workers were dismissed further demonstrated the essential nature of their duties.
The Court also condemned the abrupt termination of the workers’ services, stating that the dismissals were arbitrary and violated basic principles of natural justice. It reminded that even contractual employees have the right to notice before termination.
Reference to Previous Judgments
The Court referred to a recent judgment in Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which ruled that employees who have performed the same duties as regular employees for an extended period cannot be denied regularization, even if their appointments were initially termed “temporary.”
Justice Vikram Nath also highlighted that the 2006 Uma Devi verdict, which aimed to curb illegal backdoor appointments, has often been misapplied to deny legitimate claims for regularization. The Court clarified that the Uma Devi ruling acknowledged that employees in irregular appointments who had served for more than ten years in duly sanctioned posts should be considered for regularization.
Criticism of Exploitative Practices
The Court also expressed concern about the growing trend of exploitative employment practices, particularly in the gig economy, where workers often face job insecurity and lack of benefits. It warned that government institutions should not mirror such practices, as they undermine labor standards and public trust in government operations.
Justice Nath stated, “Government institutions, entrusted with fairness and justice, have a greater responsibility to avoid exploitative employment practices. Misusing temporary contracts not only mirrors harmful trends seen in the gig economy but also sets a dangerous precedent.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a reminder to government departments to adhere to fair employment practices and ensure job security for long-serving employees. It calls for a shift away from exploitative temporary contracts, urging institutions to lead by example in providing stable and just employment opportunities.
