The Umadevi judgment has become the precedent for the regularization of temporary workers and curtailing the backdoor entry. Especially the apex court in the Umadevi judgment has held as follows.
“…Right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood….
…. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent….”
It also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents
Recently when the employer placed reliance on Umadevi judgment in Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. The bench comprised of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale has held 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.”
Further directed the employer to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement.
Cause title: Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale
Advocates Appeared:
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
Leave
gmail.com