INTRODUCTION
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Vice
Chancellor Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela and
Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 491, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed
whether the daily wagers are entitled for regularization of their services.
FACTS
Briefly speaking, the Appellant University engaged
daily workers who raised a dispute seeking regularization of their services.
The matter, firstly, reached the Industrial Tribunal that ordered the Appellant
to regularize the services of daily wagers who have completed 10 years of
service.
Thereafter the matter traversed to the High Court
of Gujarat that directed to make payment to daily wagers at the minimum pay
scale and to frame a scheme for regularization of such workers.
The Appellant University appealed against such
Order before the Supreme Court that passed Judgment dated 18.01.2001 in Gujarat
Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC
57, approving the scheme of regularization framed by the Appellant and directed
the Appellant to create additional posts and absorb the daily wagers within six
months. However, somehow that regularization process could not get completed
and the daily wagers again approached the High Court. The High Court allowed
the plea of daily wagers by Judgment dated 13.03.2018 and again directed the
Respondents to treat daily wagers as permanent employees from the date they have
completed 10 years of service as daily wagers. Thus, the Appellant University
again approached the Supreme Court claiming financial difficulties and other
such grounds.
Now, let us understand the pertinent observations
by the Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court distinguished the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, that
was cited by the Appellants, wherein it was held that regularization of
services as a one-time measure can be done for only those workers who have
worked for more than 10 years in duly sanctioned posts. In this case, the Court
observed that the case of the Respondent Daily Wagers is already covered by Gujarat
Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC
57, and the Umadevi case will not have any effect on such Order.
Secondly, the Court observed that regularization
of services needs to be made in a phased manner and there should be creation of
additional posts in an expeditious manner.
Thirdly, the Court noted that the plea of the
Appellant University is that only 890 posts were created for regularization and
since no further posts have been created, regularization of leftover daily
wagers is not possible. The Hon’ble Court was not impressed with such plea and
observed that when 890 posts can be created in compliance of the 2001 Gujarat
Agricultural University Judgment, then the leftover daily wagers are also
entitled for regularization, and it is the obligation of the University to
implement its regularization scheme to cover such leftover eligible daily
wagers.
HELD BY THE COURT
Therefore, in light of the above, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that there is no error in the Judgment of the High Court
which warrants interference, and the eligible daily wagers have a right for
regularization.
That was all about the case. So, what are my
concluding remarks?
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I concur with the underlying reasoning of the Court
that when an earlier order has been passed by the Supreme Court, it must be
complied with and the excuse that the rules of regularization have changed
after such Judgment cannot be claimed by the State. It is truly a pity that many
daily wagers who were seeking regularization since the year 1993 are yet to be
regularized. Many of them would already be on the verge of retirement. I hope
that the daily wagers get their regularization as soon as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment