The issue of granting permanency to contract workers in public sector employment has been a contentious topic in Indian labor law. A recent case before the Bombay High Court delves into the legal principles surrounding the regularisation of employees working on contract basis, particularly in the context of the Government of Maharashtra's staffing arrangements for the Rajshri Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College in Kolhapur. This article outlines the key legal issues, the arguments presented, and the Court's final ruling on the subject.
Factual Background:
In March 2013, the Industrial Court in Kolhapur directed the grant of permanency to a group of contract workers at the College, based on their completion of 240 days of service. The petitioners, including the Government of Maharashtra and the Medical College, challenged this order in the Bombay High Court. The petitioners contended that the grant of permanency was unjustified and legally unsustainable.
The controversy began when the Government of Maharashtra, through a Government Resolution (GR) dated 8 May 2003, sanctioned 274 regular posts and 113 contract posts at the College. These contract posts included academic, technical, and administrative roles. Despite the official sanctioning of contract positions, the College had started making contractual appointments as early as January 2003, even before the issuance of the GR. The employees who were appointed in 2003 claimed they had been selected through a proper process, including requisitions to the Employment Exchange, written tests, and interviews.
However, the key issue remained whether the contract workers, after serving for extended periods, could claim permanency solely on the basis of completing 240 days of service, as prescribed in the Model Standing Orders (MSOs).
Legal Framework:
The case touches upon several key legal principles related to labor law in India. A crucial point was the interpretation of Clause 4(C) of the Model Standing Orders, which deals with the regularisation of temporary workers.
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in a similar case (Municipal Council Tirora v. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade, 2016), had clarified that permanency cannot be granted to contract workers in government and public sector employment merely based on the completion of 240 days of service. The Court held that the Industrial Adjudicator cannot create posts or regularise employment by circumventing the statutory framework governing public employment.
The Umadevi judgment (2006) of the Supreme Court, which set down strict guidelines for regularisation in government services, further reinforced this stance. It mandates that public sector appointments must follow due procedure and should not be made arbitrarily. Workers who have been employed without due process or against the constitutional mandate do not acquire a legal right to permanency or regularisation.
The Court's Ruling:
The Bombay High Court, in its review of the case, acknowledged the legal position that merely completing 240 days of service in a public sector job does not entitle workers to permanency. However, the Court also recognised that the State Government had been considering the regularisation of contract workers in the College. In 2009, the Government had initiated a process to convert the 113 contract posts into regular posts. This proposal, however, had not yet been finalised.
Given the Government's consideration of regularisation, the Court directed that the proposals of the contract workers be sent to the State Government for review, with a view towards converting the contract posts into permanent positions. The Court emphasised that if the State Government approved the conversion of these posts into regular positions, the employees would be granted regularisation with all consequential benefits from the date of such conversion.
Key Points of the Judgment:
Modification of the Industrial Court's Order: The High Court modified the Industrial Court’s order, which had granted permanency on the basis of 240 days of service. Instead, it directed that the State Government consider the regularisation of the workers, following its earlier proposal to convert contract posts into regular ones.
Legal Precedents: The Court relied on the Hari Nandan Prasad v. FCI case, which clarified that an industrial adjudicator has the jurisdiction to direct regularisation if there is a scheme for it. The ruling also referenced earlier judgments that stressed the importance of following the constitutional framework when considering regularisation in public sector jobs.
State Government's Role: The Court pointed out that the State Government had initiated steps towards regularisation by contemplating the conversion of contract posts into permanent positions. The Court directed the Government to expedite this process and review the employees' cases accordingly.
Continued Service: While the State Government deliberated on the regularisation issue, the Court ruled that the contract workers should continue in service for a further two months, ensuring they were not abruptly removed from their positions during the pendency of the case.
Conclusion:
The case highlights the complex intersection of labor rights, government staffing policies, and legal principles governing public sector employment. While the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the principle that permanency cannot be granted automatically to contract workers based solely on the completion of 240 days, it also recognised the State Government's role in addressing long-standing issues of regularisation for employees working under contract for years. The judgment provides a balanced approach, ensuring that employees are not deprived of their rightful claims while maintaining the integrity of the legal framework for public sector appointments.
The case serves as an important reminder that, while employees have legitimate expectations, the constitutional framework and government policy must guide decisions on regularisation, avoiding arbitrary appointments or bypassing due process.
