PART-TIME EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE GRANTED STABILITY IF ENGAGED FOR A CONSIDERABLE EXTENDED PERIOD .

The practice of employers especially the government entities in providing employment on a temporary ad-hoc basis for considerable extended period without providing fair and stable employment has been strongly depreciated and criticized by the Supreme court of judicature in recent occasions. The apex court has expressed that employers inadvertently avails the remedy granted by the constitutional bench judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.1 wherein the constitutional bench held that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, while ignoring the fact that the said judgment also explicitly acknowledges that no employee should be kept temporarily for an indefinite period and should be considered for regularization at the earliest or be made clear regarding its employment status.

a) The object of the statuary provision of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. is that it grants partial protection in terms of compensation to the retrenched employee who has been illegally terminated.

THE UMA DEVI JUDGEMENT: “TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT DOES NOT DEEM LEGITIMACY OR PERMANENT ENGAGEMENT.”

The legal precedent prior to Uma Devi (supra) was that if the court found that the temporary employee was wrongfully terminated and was violative of section 25F of the ID Act,1947, a relief of regularization with full back wages would be the rightful remedy, However, after the  judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) in 2006, the legal dynamic took a different turn where the constitutional bench opined that a temporary workman who has been working for a considerable amount of time cannot presume to be permanently engaged and claim relief accordingly. It opined that regularization of contractual or part time employees would amount to legalization of back door entrants and cannot claim discrimination and the remedy of Articles 14, 16 & 309 of the Constitution of India on the ground that they have been paid lesser than regularly recruited employee. The five judge bench held that “When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” This Judgement sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles and laid down the view that only employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, this ruling has often been misinterpreted or misapplied.

ONE TIME MONETARY COMPENSATION IS THE CORRECT RULE AND NOT REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES.

The strong legal precedent set by Uma Devi (Supra) “that grant of one time monetary compensation is the correct rule and not reinstatement with back wages if a daily wager is terminated illegally in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” has been time and again reiterated, concurred, misapplied and misinterpreted by many supreme court judgement in Union of India and others v. Vartak Labour Union.2, Union of India and others v. All India Trade Union Congress and others.3, Union of India v. Ilmo Devi.4. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Sharma.5

The Supreme court in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board.6 also observed that: “It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.”

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Bhurumal.7 , the Supreme Court opined that: “It is an ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”

RECENT RULING: THE UMA DEVI JUDGEMENT CANNOT BE USED AS A SHIELD BY THE EMPLOYERS.

The Supreme court in Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad.8  has distinguished and interpreted the principles laid in the Uma Devi Judgement (Supra) and has observed that the services of a temporary employee cannot be taken for granted or exploited for years without undertaking a legitimate recruitment or drawing a permanent picture of the employee's employment status, the Apex court held that the “judgment does not justify the perpetual exploitation of daily wage workers denying them the benefits of regularization” and opinionated that "Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment."

Similarly, The Supreme court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others.9,  has observed that the principles laid in Uma Devi (supra) often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employee stating that “It is a disconcerting reality that no employee can be kept temporary for an indefinite period. An employee has right to be considered for regularization: that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long term obligations owed to employees. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.” The court further laid down the major factors that causes hindrance to temporary employment:

i. Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees that perform vital, recurrent, and integral tasks for an organization and are categorized as "temporary" or "contractual," even if their roles are similar to regular employees. This Miss-classification denies workers the same respect, security, and benefits as normal employees, even if they do the same responsibilities.

ii. Temporary employees: are terminated without any show cause or notice which is a violation of natural justice principles and creates a sense of insecurity for temporary workers, regardless of their service quality or duration.

iii. Lack of Career Progression: temporary employment debars upgradation of the employee as well as promotions, or incremental pay raises.this causes stagnation creating disparity from that of a regular employee despite the contribution of both being equally significant.

iv. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

v. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

Recently, A  bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India & Anr.10 Observed that “the institutions rely on the Uma Devi Judgment's dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal.” and held that the government entities should lead by example and grant fair and stable employment to temporary workers who’s engagement is extended periodically. A Similar view was also taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana and others.11

Thus, the Supreme court’s recent observations has filled the misuse/misinterpretation of the Uma Devi judgement (supra). The employers, especially the government departments should ensure fair employment practice and the part-employees whose employment has been extended time and again for their integral and vital contribution to the department deserve a better treatment and a legitimate employment status, failure to grant them so, is exploitative and violative of natural justice and their fundamental rights granted by the Indian Constitution. By upholding this reformed way of practice, the employers can avoid unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness which would improve better labour practice in India.

Endnote:

1.  (2006) 4 SCC 1 
2.  (2011) 4 SCC 200.
3.  (2019) 5 SCC 773.
4.  (2021) 20 SCC 290
5.  (2018) 18 SCC 80
6.  (2009) 15 SCC 327.
7.  (2014) 7 SCC 177
8.  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024
9.  2024 SCC Online SC 3826,
10. 2025 SCC Online Cal 1629
11. CWP-10071-2022