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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more