Continuous service exceeding 20 years on sanctioned posts warrants regularization to prevent unfair labor practice.

The respondent workmen raised a dispute alleging threatened termination. During the proceedings, the High Court and the Labour Court granted interim orders for the maintenance of status quo.

The Labour Court subsequently found that the workmen had been employed across various posts for over 20 years and directed their regularization.

The State challenged this before a learned Single Judge, who upheld the award, noting that despite the availability of sanctioned posts, the State continued to pay minimum wages, which constituted an unfair labour practice and exploitation.

The State preferred these Letters Patent Appeals, contending that the workmen had not completed 240 days of service in every year.

1. Whether the State's contention regarding the failure to complete 240 days of service is sustainable in light of a 20-year continuous service record.

2. Whether the continued employment of workmen on minimum wages for over 20 years despite available sanctioned posts entitles them to regularization.

The court relied on the principles of regularization established by the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which distinguished between legitimate regularization and illegal "backdoor entries".

The court also applied relevant Government Resolutions (GR), specifically the GR dated 17.10.1988, which provides a framework for the regularization and benefit-extension for long-serving daily-wage workers.

The court invoked the doctrine against "unfair labour practices" and "exploitation" where the State avoids granting benefits of regular employment despite the existence of sanctioned posts.

The Court rejected the State’s technical plea regarding the 240-day requirement, holding that the factual finding of 20 years of continuous service rendered such arguments inapplicable.

The Bench observed that the State’s own conduct—specifically the department’s positive recommendation and proposal for regularization during the pendency of the appeal—contradicted its legal challenge.

The Court reasoned that keeping workmen on minimum wages for two decades while sanctioned posts remained unfilled amounted to exploitation.

By proposing regularization under the GR dated 17.10.1988, the department effectively accepted the findings of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge.

The Court held that the workmen are entitled to regularization in terms of the GR dated 17.10.1988.

The State Government is directed to accept the department's recommendation and pass appropriate orders for regularization within a period of six weeks.