Skip to main content

SC overrules HC, says temps cannot claim permanent jobs

Reiterating its view that daily wage workers or those employed on contract have no legal right to be absorbed in service, the Supreme Court has yet again said that unless they are working against a sanctioned post, temporary employees cannot demand regularisation of their services.

A bench consisting of Justice B S Chauhan and Justice A K Sikri, passing orders on a labour case that had its origins in Tamil Nadu, cited earlier orders of the apex court in the matter and said temporary service for a certain number of years cannot entitle an employee to claim regularisation of his services.

The bench made the ruling in a case pertaining to R Govindaswamy and five others, who were appointed part-time sweepers by the school education department. As their services were not regularised even 10 years after the appointment, they filed writ petitions in the Madras high court in 2012. The same year, the coutrt directed the department to absorb them as fulltime employees, from the date they completed 10 years in the job.

As the school education department's writ appeals were dismissed, it moved the apex court in 2014. Senior counsel for the department P P Rao said the direction to regularize part-time employees was against the rules.

Noting that the department has already complied with the high court order and that it was not going to disturb the services of these employees, Rao said the court must clarify the legal position so that the high court ruling would not be cited as a precedent .

Their counsel P R Kovilan, however, said the six employees had been working as part-time sweepers for a long time and non-regularisation of their service would tantamount to exploitation.

The bench, while agreeing not to disturb the regularised employees, made it clear that unless they were recruited on temporary basis against a sanctioned post, the question of regularising their services would not arise at all.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/SC-overrules-HC-says-temps-cannot-claim-permanent-jobs/articleshow/31074811.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...