Continuous Long-Term Service on Contractual Basis Warrants Regularisation Against Available Sanctioned Posts

The respondent was recruited as a Class-IV Watchman through an Employment Exchange in 2003 on a contractual basis

Despite the initial one-year contract, he continued in service for nine years until his termination in 2012

A Labour Court subsequently set aside the termination, ordering reinstatement with 10% back wages and continuity of service—an award upheld through the High Court and Supreme Court

Upon reinstatement in 2016, the appellants continued his employment on a contractual pay scale, leading to further litigation where the High Court granted him minimum wages but did not address regularization

In 2019, the respondent sought regularization via the Labour Court; the request was denied on the grounds of his contractual status and previous litigation

A Single Judge of the High Court later overturned this, ordering regularization effective from November 2023

The State appealed this decision

1. Whether a workman who has served for over two decades under a "contractual" label is entitled to regularization when a sanctioned post becomes available

2. Whether the failure to grant regularization in a previous writ petition constitutes a legal bar (deemed rejection) against seeking such relief in subsequent proceedings

The court applied the principle that the nomenclature of employment (e.g., "contractual" or "outsourcing") is secondary to the nature of the work extracted; the primary consideration is whether the service was continuous and uninterrupted

It relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that long-term service shouldn't be exploited through temporary labels

The court applied the principle of equity in labor law, emphasizing that the availability of a sanctioned post justifies the transition from temporary to regular status for long-serving employees

The court dismissed the State’s procedural objection that the 2016 petition had already "deemed" the regularization plea rejected. It noted that the issue was neither pleaded nor considered in the previous judgment and therefore did not operate as a bar

On the merits, the court noted the respondent had provided over 23 years of service after being recruited through official channels

The Bench observed that a sanctioned post had become vacant in November 2023, meeting the legal requirement for regularization

The court characterized the State’s persistent use of contractual terms for a two-decade tenure as an attempt to exploit the workman, concluding that the Single Judge’s order was actually lenient toward the State by only granting benefits from 2023 rather than an earlier date

The court held that the respondent is entitled to regularization effective from November 2023, coinciding with the vacancy of a sanctioned post

The court affirmed that no other claims or retrospective benefits beyond this date were granted