Supreme Court: In an appeal concerning the regularisation of long-serving daily-wage employees engaged in a sensitive establishment under the Indian Space Research Organisation, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which had upheld the rejection of the appellants’ claim. The Court held that the Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012 (Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012), framed by the respondents, failed to comply with the binding directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, which had attained finality up to the Supreme Court.
Emphasising the true import of the Tribunal’s order dated 9 March 2010, the Court reiterated that the mandate was not merely to regulate engagement of labourers but to ensure a transition from an ad hoc system to a structured framework based on the creation of sanctioned posts and engagement on a more permanent footing. The Court clarified that any scheme providing only for temporary engagement would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the said directions. It further underscored that once such directions had attained finality, the scope of subsequent judicial scrutiny was confined to examining compliance, and the High Court erred in reopening the issue.
Background
The present appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court dated 8 July 2024 affirming the rejection of the appellants’ claim for regularisation of service. The appellants were engaged as daily-wage employees between 1991 and 1997 at the Mahendragiri Unit of the respondent. Following the introduction of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993, they sought regularisation, but no action was taken. This led them to file O.A. No. 455 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which on 9 March 2010 directed the respondents to frame a scheme or ad hoc rules within six months to regularise such workers. The respondents’ challenge to this order failed before the High Court on 14 March 2011 and also before the Supreme Court on 29 July 2011, rendering the directions final.
In purported compliance, the respondents framed the “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme” on 3 September 2012. The appellants initially challenged non-compliance through contempt proceedings, which were dismissed on 10 October 2012, and subsequently expressed willingness to be governed by the scheme. However, they later assailed the validity of the scheme by filing O.A. No. 326 of 2015. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 14 July 2016, but the High Court remanded the matter on 25 April 2017 for fresh consideration. Upon remand, the Tribunal again dismissed the application on 20 December 2018, and the review petition was also rejected. The appellants then approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019 seeking quashing of the scheme and directions for creation of posts and retrospective regularisation, but the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 8 July 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Court held that the fulcrum of the controversy lay in the true import of the Tribunal’s order dated 9 March 2010, and whether the “Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012” satisfied the mandate contained therein. Upon a careful reading of the said order, the Court found that the Tribunal had envisaged a transition from an ad hoc, daily-wage arrangement to a structured regime founded upon the creation of requisite sanctioned posts, with engagement on a more permanent footing. The direction to accord preferential consideration to the appellants, including age relaxation, was held to be ancillary to this primary mandate. The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that no direction for regularisation was issued, observing that any scheme which merely regulates temporary engagement without providing for post creation would fall short of compliance with the letter and spirit of the Tribunal’s directions, which had attained finality.
Examining the “Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012”, the Court noted that it contemplated engagement purely on a temporary basis and thus stood in clear variance with the binding directions issued in the earlier round of litigation. It was held that the respondents had failed to fully comply with those directions. The Court further found that the High Court erred in re-entering the merits of regularisation by relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, despite the issue having attained finality, and exceeded its jurisdiction by reopening settled questions instead of confining itself to examining compliance.
Also Read: Regularisation in Service Jurisprudence: Before and After Umadevi
Emphasising that the State is obligated to act as a model employer under Article 14, the Court deprecated the respondents’ conduct in diluting binding judicial directions and prolonging the dispute. It underscored that fairness, non-arbitrariness, and dignity in public employment extend equally to workers engaged in ancillary or sporadic duties, whose contributions are integral to institutional functioning.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and held that the “Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012”, insofar as it provided for temporary engagement, was inconsistent with the Tribunal’s directions. The respondents were directed to regularise the services of the appellants by granting them permanent status with effect from 9 September 2010, within four weeks. The offending Clause 41 of the Scheme was quashed, and it was further directed that the benefit of the judgment shall enure to all similarly situated persons.
Also Read: Calling daily wage workers’ service as ‘casual’ is morally unjust|SCC Times
[R. Iyyappan v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 742, decided on 29-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vikram Nath
1. [Ed.: The judgment reproduces Clause 4 of the Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012 at para 23 as the provision dealing with temporary employment, while the operative direction at para 29(II) sets aside “Clause 2” of the Scheme. The apparent inconsistency between these two paragraphs has not been explained in the judgment.]