Telangana HC: Bureaucratic limitations cannot override workers’ rights
Hyderabad: Justice Nanda of the Telangana High Court ruled that bureaucratic limitations cannot override the legitimate rights of workers. She directed the state government to consider the case of a full-time contingent worker at a primary school in Adilabad district for regularization and asked the petitioner to submit his claim for regularization, including that his temporary service as a contingent worker in the last-grade post be treated as regular service for all purposes, and that he be paid the last-grade pay with periodic increments, revised from time to time, from the date of his appointment, along with all benefits.
The parameters for considering such representations were set out in the court’s 30-page judgment, and the representations were to be considered within four weeks. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by D. Ganapathy, who complained that he was employed in 1991. He stated that he had not been paid a decent living wage as a full-time worker since 1991. He also sought wages under the Minimum Wages Act for 30 years. The department argued that the petitioner’s complaint was never reported to the appropriate authority and therefore, no mandamus could be issued. Justice Nanda elaborated on various Supreme Court judgments on temporary engagement and disengagement, which the judge observed.
The judge stated that the employer’s dismissal of the appellant worker violated the most basic labor law principles. Once it was established that his service was not extended to the U.P. These workers, whose jobs were terminated without complying with Sections 6E and 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and who were engaged in essential, permanent work, cannot be kept in perpetual uncertainty. While concerns about municipal budgets and adherence to recruitment rules must be considered, such concerns do not absolve employers of legal responsibilities or abrogate their equal rights. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot abrogate the legitimate rights of workers who have worked continuously in de facto regular roles for a long period of time. In the present case, Justice Nanda stated that the respondents had failed to perform their duty in examining the petitioner’s request for regularization of his services, who was working as a full-time contingent worker, and further failed to consider his request to treat his temporary service in the last grade post of a full-time contingent worker as regular for all purposes, including granting him the last grade pay with revised periodic increments from time to time from the date of his appointment, as required by law. However, since the petitioner had not presented his claim to the authorities, they were directed to consider his claim for regularization positively based on several decisions in his favor.
Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court stated that an award passed by a Lok Adalat is binding on both parties and can be challenged in a writ petition on very few grounds. The judge stated that an employee is entitled to regular, continuous, and uninterrupted service or benefits legally due during his employment, whether financial or non-financial, such as increments, allowances, promotions, seniority-based advancement, pay scales, leave, gratuity, pension, pensionary benefits, and other retirement dues.
However, where the terms of a Lok Adalat award specifically provide for continuation of service without back pay and attendant benefits, such terms are binding on the parties. The judge was considering a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) regarding A. Venka Raga Rao, a former conductor who was dismissed from service for involvement in serious ticketing irregularities.
The employee challenged his removal, and the matter was ultimately referred to the Lok Adalat, which ordered his reinstatement without arrears of service, attendant benefits, and arrears of pay. Subsequently, the employee sought continued service as a conductor from the date of his initial appointment, seniority, promotion to the post of junior assistant at par with his batchmates, seniority counting from the initial date of appointment, and consequential benefits. However, the Corporation pointed out that the Lok Adalat’s decision clearly stated the continuation of service without arrears of pay or attendant benefits. It further stated that since seniority protection is an attendant benefit, the petitioner was not entitled to promotion at par with his batchmates.
After extensively considering the law and relevant circulars on the subject, Justice Anil Kumar dismissed the petitioner’s petition as meritless. The Court held that granting the relief sought would amount to rewriting the terms of the Lok Adalat agreement, which is unacceptable.
