Daily-wage workers cannot be replaced by another temporary workforce performing the same work.

The 24 applicants were engaged by the Department of Posts as Safaiwalas, Watermen, or a Mali at various post offices under Hailakandi Head Post Office.

Their engagement was on an hourly basis, with duty hours ranging from one to 2.5 hours per day; some applicants had allegedly served since 1985, 1989, 1996, 1997, and subsequent years.

They relied on a departmental Memo dated 12 April 1999, which sanctioned enhancement of the working hours of a part-time Safaiwala at Hailakandi Head Office from four to five hours per day.

The applicants also claimed entitlement to revised wages and Dearness Allowance under the Department of Posts’ Office Memorandum dated 22 January 2015 and the 7th Central Pay Commission-related Office Memorandum dated 31 March 2017.

They asserted that their wages were paid on a pro-rata basis by reference to the minimum Level-1 pay of ₹18,000 per month, but were stopped from November 2024 despite their continued performance of duties.

They submitted representations dated 21 December 2024, 10 January 2025, and 20 January 2025 seeking release of wages and related benefits.

The respondents contended that the applicants were merely daily-wage labourers engaged as and when required, not part-time casual workers, and that their engagement was neither against sanctioned posts nor through the Employment Exchange or an open advertisement.

During the pendency of the application, the applicants alleged that they were orally prevented from attending work and replaced by fresh daily-wage or outsourced workers performing the same duties.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to release of wages for the period from November 2024 onwards during which they had actually performed their duties?

2. Whether the applicants could be replaced by another set of daily-wage, ad hoc, or outsourced workers while performing the same work during the pendency of the proceedings?

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to regularisation, temporary status, or any other benefit based on their long and continuous service?

4. Whether the applicants’ claims for enhancement of working hours to five hours per day and consequential Dearness Allowance were required to be examined under the Memo dated 12 April 1999 and applicable instructions?

The Tribunal applied the principle that long and uninterrupted service cannot be disregarded merely because an engagement is labelled part-time, contractual, or daily-wage, particularly where the work is perennial and integral to the establishment, as recognised in Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9729/2024, 2024 INSC 624, and Jaggo v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 14831/2024, 2024 INSC 1034.

However, those decisions do not confer an automatic right to regularisation; the claim must be assessed by considering the manner of initial engagement, nature and duration of service, existence of sanctioned posts, and applicable rules or schemes.

The Tribunal also applied the principle in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118, that one set of temporary or daily-wage workers should not ordinarily be replaced by another set while the same work continues.

At the same time, regular recruitment against duly sanctioned posts in accordance with applicable rules remains permissible.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had rendered service for substantial periods and that their duties as Safaiwalas, Watermen, and Mali appeared to concern continuing functions of the Department, notwithstanding the respondents’ description of them as daily-wage labourers.

Applying Ushaben Joshi and Jaggo, the Tribunal held that the substance and duration of the engagement had to be examined rather than its nomenclature alone; nevertheless, the record was insufficient to direct immediate regularisation because questions remained regarding the manner of initial engagement, sanctioned posts, and applicable schemes.

With respect to the alleged replacement, the Tribunal held that if verification established that the applicants had been stopped from work and replaced by other daily-wage or outsourced workers performing the same duties, such replacement could not be sustained merely because the applicants had approached the Tribunal.

This protection did not restrict the respondents from undertaking regular recruitment against duly sanctioned posts.

As to wages, the Tribunal directed verification of attendance and relevant records, thereby limiting recovery to wages lawfully due for periods in which the applicants actually worked.

The claims for temporary status, enhancement of working hours, and consequential DA were left for individual consideration by the competent authority under the applicable instructions and the 12 April 1999 sanction.

The respondents were directed, after verification, to ensure that the applicants were not replaced by another set of daily-wage, ad hoc, or outsourced workers performing the same work merely because they had approached the Tribunal.

They were further directed to verify attendance and other records and release wages lawfully payable for the period during which the applicants had actually worked, within eight weeks of receiving the order.

No direct order of regularisation was issued; instead, the competent authority was directed to individually examine the applicants’ claims for temporary status or other available benefits and pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks.

The authority was also directed to examine the claims for enhancement of working hours to five hours per day and consequential Dearness Allowance under the applicable rules, instructions, and the Memo dated 12 April 1999.