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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more