Daily-wage workers cannot be replaced through outsourcing; their direct engagement must continue subject to Supreme Court outcome.

The applicants were working as daily-wage, casual, or contractual Group ‘D’ workers in various Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in Jammu and Kashmir, including as mess helpers, sweepers, gardeners, electricians-cum-plumbers, casual labourers, chowkidars, and matrons.

The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (“NVS”) had earlier decided, by policy dated 23 October 2015, to obtain certain services, particularly those of chowkidars and sweepers, through outsourcing.

By letters dated 10 September 2020 and 22 September 2020, NVS directed the outsourcing of casual/contract labour services and initiated steps to replace the applicants with outsourced workers.

The applicants challenged the outsourcing policy and sought permission to continue working directly under NVS until the services were no longer required or regular appointees joined.

They also asserted a claim for regularisation, relying on their long service and the applicable NVS Recruitment Rules, 2019.

NVS opposed the applications, contending that the applicants were temporary daily wagers engaged on a need basis, had no right to regularisation or continued engagement, and could be replaced through a manpower-supplying agency.

The Tribunal noted that, in a connected matter, OA No. 60/1090/2023, it had quashed the outsourcing policy dated 10 September 2020 and directed NVS to continue the applicants’ direct engagement, while considering regularisation of those who had completed ten years of service in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaggo.

The High Court dismissed NVS’s challenge to that decision, although the matter was subsequently carried to the Supreme Court, where operation of the impugned High Court order was stayed pending the SLP.

1. Whether NVS could replace the applicants, who were directly engaged as daily-wage or contractual workers, with workers supplied through an outsourcing agency pursuant to the policies dated 23 October 2015 and 10 September 2020?

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to continue their direct engagement with NVS and whether their claims for regularisation were required to be considered, particularly where they had completed ten years of service?

3. Whether the connected applications should be disposed of in terms of the Tribunal’s decision in OA No. 60/1090/2023, subject to the final outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings?

The Tribunal applied the principle that casual or daily-wage workers directly engaged by an establishment cannot be replaced merely by another set of workers engaged through an outsourcing agency, particularly where such replacement is inconsistent with the applicable Recruitment Rules and prejudicial to the workers’ existing rights.

It relied on its earlier decision in OA No. 60/1090/2023, which held that NVS’s outsourcing of the applicants’ services was illegal and not in consonance with the Recruitment Rules, and quashed the policy dated 10 September 2020.

The Tribunal also applied the principle arising from the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaggo, directing consideration of regularisation claims of casual workers who had completed ten years of employment, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

The High Court’s affirmation of the Tribunal’s approach, including its authority to mould relief, was also taken into account.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were admittedly performing work for NVS as daily-wage or contractual workers and that NVS proposed to replace them with outsourced personnel rather than discontinue the underlying work.

Applying the ratio of its earlier decision in OA No. 60/1090/2023, the Tribunal treated such replacement as impermissible because outsourcing would deprive the applicants of their direct engagement and was inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal also considered that the same legal controversy had already been upheld by the High Court, though the High Court’s order was subject to a pending Supreme Court challenge and an interim stay on its operation.

Since both parties accepted that the connected matters involved the same issue, the Tribunal adopted the earlier decision without independently reopening the merits, while expressly making the relief conditional upon the final outcome of the pending SLP.

Accordingly, the applicants were entitled to continue their engagement directly under NVS, and NVS was required to consider the regularisation claims of those who had completed ten years of employment, in accordance with the applicable law and the Jaggo principle.

The relief was expressly made subject to the final outcome of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 65194/2025 pending before the Supreme Court.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.