Authorities must consider long-serving casual workers for regularisation under applicable schemes and precedent.

The eight applicants were engaged as casual workers in the Central Excise/GST Department in Assam between 1993 and 1995 and continued to work for several years on a daily-wage/no-work-no-pay basis

The Government of India introduced the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, under which temporary status could be granted to casual labourers who had rendered at least one year of continuous service, calculated as 240 days, or 206 days in offices observing a five-day week, as on 10 September 1993.

By order dated 15 October 2009, the respondents included the applicants among 80 casual workers who were granted wages at the minimum of the relevant Group-D pay scale, along with dearness allowance and other benefits; however, the order did not regularize their services.

Subsequently, 30 workers from that list were granted temporary status and regularized by order dated 1 September 2010, but the applicants were not included.

The applicants therefore sought temporary status with retrospective effect from completion of one year of service and regularization on parity with similarly situated workers, relying, inter alia, on the order dated 23 January 2019 concerning other casual labourers.

The respondents opposed the application, contending that none of the applicants had completed one year of continuous service as on 10 September 1993 and that they consequently did not satisfy the 1993 Scheme or the applicable principles arising from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

1. Whether the applicants, having served as casual workers for several years and having been paid wages at the minimum of the Group-D pay scale, were entitled to consideration for temporary status and regularization on parity with the 30 similarly situated casual workers who had been granted such benefits

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to consider the applicants’ claims for regularization was sustainable in light of the 1993 Scheme, the principles in Uma Devi, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions concerning long-serving contractual or daily-wage employees

The Tribunal applied the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, issued pursuant to the Government’s Office Memorandum dated 10 September 1993, under which temporary status was available to casual labourers employed on the date of the memorandum who had completed at least one year of continuous service—240 days, or 206 days in a five-day-week establishment.

It also considered the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi concerning regularization of long-serving temporary and daily-wage employees, while relying on subsequent authorities including Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Prem Singh v. State of U.P., Bhikani Devi v. Union of India, and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, which emphasize that the State cannot indefinitely exploit employees performing perennial and essential duties by retaining them on temporary or contractual terms.

The Tribunal further relied on the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees where some workers had already received temporary status and regularization.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had been engaged between 1993 and 1995 and had rendered long and uninterrupted service, and that the respondents themselves had recognized their engagement by including them in the 2009 list of 80 casual workers and extending wages linked to the Group-D pay scale.

Although the respondents asserted that the applicants did not satisfy the one-year service requirement as on 10 September 1993, the Tribunal focused on the admitted long-term utilization of their services and the fact that 30 workers from the same broad category had subsequently received temporary status and regularization.

Applying the principle that employees performing perennial departmental work should not be subjected to indefinite temporary status, the Tribunal held that the applicants’ claims required consideration in accordance with the governing scheme and the applicable Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal did not itself grant regularization or determine final eligibility; instead, it directed the respondents to undertake a lawful and comparative consideration of the applicants’ cases.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicants’ cases for regularization on parity with similarly situated casual labourers, in light of the applicable circulars/schemes, Uma Devi, Jaggo, and other relevant judgments, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal consequently disposed of any pending miscellaneous application and made no order as to costs.