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

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...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.