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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more