Continuous service for twenty-four years entitles a workman to regularization notwithstanding initial part-time status.

The workman was initially appointed on a part-time basis at the Learning Development Center, which was subsequently closed, leading to his relief from service

In 2008, the Industrial Tribunal ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages

On appeal in 2013, the High Court confirmed the reinstatement and continuity but set aside the back wages

Following his reinstatement on March 8, 2013, the workman sought regularization effective from April 1, 2013

The Labour Court, by an award dated July 1, 2024, directed the regularization of his services from the date of the award’s publication and granted notional benefits for retiral purposes for his prior service

The State challenged this before a Single Judge, who upheld the award, noting the workman had completed 24 years of service in a sanctioned post

The State then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal

1. Whether a workman who has rendered 24 years of continuous service is entitled to regularization, notwithstanding his initial appointment as a part-time employee

2. Whether the State's extraction of work for nearly a quarter-century justifies the conclusion that the nature of the work was perennial, thereby necessitating regularization

The court applied the principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that long-term continuous service (24 years) in a perennial role creates a right to regularization

It relied on the principle that the length of service—equivalent to nearly an entire working career—overrides technical objections regarding initial recruitment procedures or part-time status, especially for Class-IV employees

The court observed that the workman had served since the year 2000, and by virtue of the 2008 award granting continuity of service, he had effectively served for 26 years

The court reasoned that if the State extracts work from an individual for 24 years out of a typical 30-year career, it is self-evident that the work is perennial in nature

The court rejected the State's contention that part-time status or lack of recruitment procedures barred regularization, holding that it is "inconceivable" for a part-time arrangement to last 24 years without creating an entitlement to regular status

The bench concluded that ignoring nearly a quarter-century of service by a Class-IV employee would be "wholly unfair and arbitrary"

It held that the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge were perfectly justified in regularizing the workman's services given the peculiar facts and the extraordinary length of his service (24 years)

The award granting regularization from the date of publication (July 1, 2024) and notional retiral benefits for prior service was upheld