Supreme Court on Regularization of Daily Wage Earners

 

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.