Bombay High Court Overturns Labour Court's Reinstatement Of Typist; Clarifies Regularization Criteria To Contractual Workers In State Instrumentalities

A Single Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled in favour of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and overturned a Labour Court award that had directed the MSEB to reinstate Suchita Vijay Surve as a permanent employee with 50% back wages. Surve had worked as a typist on a contractual basis for the Board and had sought permanency after six years of service. The Court ruled that there was no employment relationship, as Surve was never formally appointed, but only engaged on a work-for-hire basis. Background MSEB contested the Labour Court's award dated 31 March 2005, which had granted Surve reinstatement as a regular employee with 50% back wages. Surve had been engaged as a typist by the MSEB on a purely contractual basis, being compensated Rs. 10 per 1,000 words typed. Her engagement began in 1987, and she continued until 1993, when her services were discontinued without a formal dismissal process. Following her termination, Surve approached the Labour Court, seeking reinstatement and permanency, claiming she had completed more than 240 days of continuous service annually between 1987 and 1993. The Labour Court ruled in Surve's favor, directing her reinstatement with 50% back wages and granting her the status of a permanent employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ruling was based on the claim that Surve had worked for more than 240 days a year, which entitles contract workers to permanent status under the Model Standing Orders. Arguments MSEB, represented by Mr. A.R.S. Baxi, argued that Surve's engagement was purely contractual, with no formal employment relationship. The petitioner asserted that Surve was compensated on a work-for-hire basis, with no fixed working hours, no obligation to attend duties, and no inclusion in the organization's payroll or employee rosters. According to MSEB, her termination in 1993 was due to the completion of her contract, and there was no employer-employee relationship to justify permanency or back wages. The petitioner further emphasized that Surve was never appointed to a sanctioned post through a proper recruitment process. She was hired to perform a specific quantum of work, and her remuneration was based on the number of words typed, not the hours worked. MSEB contended that the Labour Court had erroneously assumed an employer-employee relationship, and its ruling was unsustainable under employment law. Counsel for Surve, Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, argued that the termination of Surve's services was illegal because she had completed more than 240 days of service annually, entitling her to permanency under the Industrial Disputes Act. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs. Jet Airways Ltd. to argue that contract workers with continuous service are entitled to permanency under the Model Standing Orders. Surve had rendered consistent services for six years and was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. Judgement Firstly, the Court highlighted that Surve's work was strictly contractual. Her engagement involved specific tasks (typing) for which she was compensated based on output, i.e., Rs. 10 per 1,000 words typed. There was no regular monthly salary, no obligation to attend duties at specific hours, and no fixed supervisory structure. The Court observed that the “Respondent was not under any obligation to attend duties for specific hours, nor was there any control over her activities similar to that exercised over regular employees.” This absence of control and supervision, the Court noted, is a critical factor in distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor. The Court also scrutinized the content of Surve's contract. The engagement letters made it clear that the work was task-based, and no rights of employment were conferred. The letter dated 15 January 1987 explicitly stated: “This engagement does not confer any right on the Respondent to claim appointment in the service of the Petitioner.” Justice Marne emphasized that Surve had no expectation of continued employment, nor was there any indication that she was ever part of the formal employment process at MSEB. The Court further addressed the legal presumption surrounding the 240-day rule under the Industrial Disputes Act. While the completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year can entitle a worker to certain protections under the Act, the Court clarified that this rule cannot automatically convert a contract worker into a permanent employee in state instrumentalities like MSEB. The judgment stated: “Completion of 240 days of service does not, in itself, create any inherent right to permanency in state instrumentalities. This is subject to the availability of sanctioned posts and compliance with formal recruitment processes.” Justice Marne reiterated that MSEB, as a state entity, was bound by stricter...

Bombay High Court Overturns Labour Court's Reinstatement Of Typist; Clarifies Regularization Criteria To Contractual Workers In State Instrumentalities

Pranav Kumar

Tags