Public-sector workers irregularly employed for ten years may be regularised against available sanctioned posts.

Seven workmen claimed continuous service with the Film & Television Institute of India (FTII) from 2003. FTII initially paid them directly, then from 2007 their services were routed through successive contractors; their services were terminated on 2 July 2018 while their permanency reference was pending.

The Industrial Tribunal held that the arrangement was illegal and unjustified and directed permanency from January 2023, when FTII had advertised 15 Studio Assistant posts. FTII challenged the permanency award, while the workmen sought permanency from January 2003.

1. Whether the workmen were FTII employees notwithstanding the intervening contractor arrangements, and whether they qualified for regularisation/permanency against available posts.

2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal could grant permanency from January 2023, having regard to the rules governing regularisation in public employment and the existence of Studio Assistant posts.

3. Whether the workmen were entitled to permanency from January 2003, including on the basis of the Central Standing Orders and the asserted 90-day rule.

4. Whether the 2015 reference was barred by delay and whether the 2018 termination was unlawful.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), long service alone does not entitle a temporary or casual employee to regularisation; the recognised one-time exception concerns duly qualified persons irregularly appointed against sanctioned vacant posts who have served for ten years or more without court orders.

MSRTC v. Casteribe and Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India recognise the industrial adjudicator’s power to grant regularisation in appropriate cases, but require available posts and do not permit creation of posts through an order of permanency.

Municipal Council, Tirora v. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade holds that completion of 240 days under Model Standing Order 4C does not, by itself, confer permanency in the absence of sanctioned vacancies.

The employer–employee relationship is assessed by factors including appointment, payment, dismissal authority, discipline, continuity, and control and supervision. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act restricts an employer’s action against workmen during pending proceedings; the judgment also refers to the statutory requirements applicable to termination.

The Court found that FTII initially engaged and paid the workmen, and that the same seven workers continued at FTII despite changes in contractors. This continuity, together with FTII’s control and its role in their termination, supported the finding that they were FTII’s workers routed through contractors.

Their service exceeded ten years, and FTII had created 15 Studio Assistant posts by 2023; the posts remained vacant while recruitment was held pending. The Court therefore upheld regularisation from January 2023, when posts were available, consistently with Umadevi and the limits on directing creation of posts.

The claim from January 2003 failed: the Central Standing Orders did not establish an automatic 90-day entitlement, and service duration alone could not justify permanency or require creation of posts.

The 2015 reference was not stale because the regularisation claim accrued after a period of service and the workmen were still working when the reference was made. FTII’s termination during the pending reference, without the applicable statutory safeguards and in breach of Section 33, was unlawful.

FTII was directed to reinstate the seven workmen as regular employees on or before 31 October 2026. They were granted notional benefits from January 2023 to 1 April 2024 and actual arrears of pay, allowances, and other benefits from 2 April 2024 onward.

No benefits were awarded for the period before January 2023 or for the period they were out of service following their termination on 2 July 2018.