'Uma Devi' Judgment Can't Be Used To Justify Exploitative Engagements : Supreme Court Allows Regularisation Of Long-Serving Daily Wagers

The Supreme Court recently criticized the practice of public institutions hiring workers on daily wages (temporary contracts) to avoid providing them with permanent benefits. The Court reaffirmed that long-serving temporary workers appointed to sanctioned positions cannot be denied regularization simply because their initial appointments were temporary.

While acknowledging the precedent set in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), which established that daily wage workers cannot claim permanent employment without meeting constitutional requirements and the existence of sanctioned vacancies, the Court clarified that this ruling cannot be used to deny long-serving workers their rights when the work they perform is inherently permanent.

“Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.”, the court observed.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale was hearing the appeal filed by the Appellants Workmen who were engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the Horticulture Department of the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam from 1998-1999. They claimed to have worked continuously under the direct supervision of the Nagar Nigam but were denied formal appointment letters, minimum wages, statutory benefits, and job security. In 2004, the workmen raised an industrial dispute, seeking regularization and statutory benefits. In July 2005, their services were terminated orally, without any written order, notice, or retrenchment compensation.

After the labour courts; conflicting orders - one favouring the workmen and the other favouring the Respondent- the High Court in appeal denied reinstatement, but allowed the Appellants' re-engagement on daily wages.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellants-Workmen appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Appellants-Workmen, appearing before the Supreme Court, based their claims for regularization on their continuous service in established positions. They argued that Uma Devi's judgment did not preclude their regularization, as employers should not be allowed to utilize their services for work of a permanent nature without providing the benefits of regular employment.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Nath acknowledged that the Appellant-workmen had been engaged for years performing the same tasks as permanent employees but were denied fair wages and benefits.

The Court noted that Municipal work is perennial in nature, and Appellants temporary classification was a means to exploit them to deny them benefits of regularisation.

“It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement.”, the court observed.

Ban On Fresh Recruitment No Excuse To Deny Benefits Of Regularization To Daily Wage Workers

The Court rejected the Respondent's reliance on Uma Devi's case to argue that the regularisation benefits cannot be extended to the Appellants because there was a ban on fresh recruitment.

Instead, the Court clarified that Uma Devi's judgment does not justify the perpetual exploitation of daily wage workers denying them the benefits of regularization.

“The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer's municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to longserving workmen”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed, directing the Municipality to initiate a regularization process within six months.

Related : Govts Engaging Temporary Workers For Long Periods Unfair; 'Uma Devi' Judgment Being Misapplied Against Long-Serving Workers : Supreme Court

Case Title: Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Appellant(s) Ms. Amiy Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shakti Vardhan, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AOR Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Joshi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Adv. Ms. Dipa Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Dr. M P Singh, Adv. Ms. Alpana Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Avanish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR