Termination of temporary, honorarium-based appointments not regularized under Uma Devi principles upheld.

The applicants, numbering eight, were employed as Folk Dance Instructors under the Directorate of Art and Culture, Lakshadweep Islands.

Applicants 1 to 7 were appointed between 1992 and 1994, and applicant 8 in 2010.

They were engaged on a temporary, monthly consolidated honorarium basis, with explicit statements in their appointment orders that the engagement would not confer any claim for regular appointment.

Their engagement was extended periodically, with the last extension recorded from January 22, 2015, to January 23, 2016, via Annexure A4.

Concurrently, the Lakshadweep Kala Academy engaged Programme Assistants on a contract basis to provide training in local folk arts from 2009.

An internal discussion within the 1st respondent's department noted a "duplication of work" between Folk Dance Instructors and Programme Assistants, and it was decided to discontinue the engagement of Folk Dance Instructors as their tenure expired, prioritizing Programme Assistants due to their more organized structure and chartered work allocation.

Apprehending termination after the expiry of their extended term, the applicants approached the Tribunal for relief.

An interim order was granted, preventing the termination of the applicants' services, which was subsequently extended.

During the proceedings, the 6th applicant died, and his legal heirs were not brought on record, leading to the abatement of his claim.

The respondents contended that the applicants were not appointed against sanctioned posts through a regular process, public notice, or in accordance with the constitutional scheme for employment.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to continue in service as Folk Dance Instructors or be regularized, given their long period of engagement.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to be retained in service in preference to Programme Assistants appointed by the Lakshadweep Kala Academy.

3. Whether the principles of 'first come last go' under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or a one-month notice period, are applicable to the termination of the applicants' services.

The court primarily referenced the principles established in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] regarding regularization of temporary employees not appointed through a regular process, holding that such individuals generally have no right to regularization.

The clarification on Uma Devi's case from Jaggo v. Union of India [AIR 2025 SC 296], stating that Uma Devi was not intended to deny employment to persons engaged continuously for a long period, was also considered.

The court also examined the applicability of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which outlines conditions for valid retrenchment, including the 'first come last go' principle and notice requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were explicitly engaged on a temporary, honorarium basis, with their appointment orders stating no claim for regular employment.

Their engagement was not through a regular recruitment process against sanctioned posts, nor were public notices issued, which goes against the constitutional scheme of employment.

The court noted that the applicants’ O.A. did not contain a prayer for regularization but rather a declaration for continued service in preference to Programme Assistants.

The court distinguished the applicants' situation from Jaggo's case, finding that its principles might not apply given the specific facts and the respondents' contention that no regular posts were available.

The respondents demonstrated a valid administrative ground for discontinuing the applicants' services, citing duplication of work with more organized Programme Assistants.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants' engagement being temporary and honorarium-based without a regular appointment process, did not entitle them to regularization or continued service.

Furthermore, the court held that Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not applicable as the case did not involve 'retrenchment' in the context where the 'first come last go' principle would apply, nor was a one-month notice mandatory when the termination was anticipated and challenged prior to its actual occurrence.

The court found that the applicants were not entitled to continue in service as Folk Dance Instructors or be retained in preference to Programme Assistants, as their engagement was temporary, not against sanctioned posts, and not through a regular appointment process.

The claim of the 6th applicant also abated due to the non-representation of legal heirs.

The court explicitly stated that the principles of Uma Devi's case and Jaggo's case did not support the applicants' claim for regularization or continued tenure, nor did Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, apply to their situation.

No costs were awarded.