Sukhwinder Singh v. State Ofpb

IN T

1667 Sukhwinder Sing

State of Punjab a

CORAM: HO

*** Present : Mr.

Mr.

Mr. *** AMAN CHAUD

1.

Pray to regularize the

2.

The his services we dispute, raised b full back wages was paid arrears claimed the regu (Annexure P6) workers who hav of the petition h Om Lal etc. who duties as the pet

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR

gh

Vs. and others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN ** Satbir Rathore, Advocate and Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punj ** DHARY, J. (ORAL) yer made in the present petition petitioner as Beldar. e petitioner was engaged on 26 ere terminated, however, the L y him, ordered his reinstatement vide Award dated 04.01.2002 s of salary as has been stated ularisation of service in terms of relating to work charged/daily ve completed 3 years of service. has been made to Kishori Lal, J o were also working as Peon/Be titioner were being paid in the s

JAB & HARYANA RH CWP-10172-2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.02.2025

… Petitioner

… Respondents N CHAUDHARY the petitioner. njab. is for directing the respondents

6.06.1989 as Beldar whereafter Labour Court on an industrial t with continuity of service and (Annexure P2), whereafter, he in para 8 of the petition. He f Instructions dated 23.01.2001 wages and other category of A specific reference in para 11 Jagan Nath, Gurmail Singh and ldar and performing the similar scale of Rs.5700-5800 whereas

salary of petition this regard, refer India and other thus:- "12 per ov dec nat res Mo the ind lac wa Th cla eng out app ser set qu xx the aft and ser ille reg exp int xx for and for the lab cha em bur uph

ner was almost half i.e. Rs.2500 rence is made to the judgment in rs, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826

¶2Despite being labelled as "par rformed these essential tasks on er extensive periods, ranging fro cades. Their engagement was ture; instead, it was recurren sponsibilities typically associa oreover, the respondents did not ese tasks during the appellan dispensable nature of their work. . The claim by the respondents th cks merit, as the nature of the wo as perennial and fundamental to he recurring nature of thes assification as regular posts, irr gagements were labelled. It is a tsourcing of these same tasks pellants' termination demonstrat rvices. This act of outsourcing, t of workers with another, furthe estion was neither temporary nor xx . The High Court placed undue e appellants' engagements and t ter their dismissal. Courts must d consider the realities of empl rvice, indispensable duties, and egalities in their appointmen gularization simply because t plicitly state so, or because an ou troduced, would be contrary to pr xx . In light of these considerations r government departments to lea d stable employment. Engaging r extended periods, especially w e organization's functioning, not bour standards but also expos allenges and undermines emplo mployment practices, governme rden of unnecessary litigation hold the principles of justice and

0/- and he is still in service. In the case of Jaggo vs. Union of 6, relevant paras of which read rt-time workers," the appellants n a daily and continuous basis om over a decade to nearly two not sporadic or temporary in nt, regular, and akin to the ated with sanctioned posts. engage any other personnel for nts' tenure, underscoring the

hat these were not regular posts ork performed by the appellants o the functioning of the offices. se duties necessitates their respective of how their initial also noteworthy that subsequent to private agencies after the tes the inherent need for these which effectively replaced one er underscores that the work in r occasional. emphasis on the initial label of the outsourcing decision taken look beyond the surface labels loyment: continuous, long-term d absence of any mala fide or nts. In that light, refusing their original terms did not utsourcing policy was belatedly rinciples of fairness and equity. , in our opinion, it is imperative ad by example in providing fair g workers on a temporary basis when their roles are integral to t only contravenes international ses the organization to legal oyee morale. By ensuring fair nt institutions can reduce the n, promote job security, and

em set con cou

3.

Reli Anandu and Karnataka and

20.02.2025, rele "O the jud unm not sev unm jud the be Ar Co em sho eng the pet the po tim not pre pet liv res sto wh cas dir wil han ma fro

mbody. This approach aligns w ts a positive precedent for the p ntributing to the overall betterm untry." iance is also placed on the judg another vs. The Principal others, Writ Petition No.10055 evant extract whereof reads thus: On a coalesce of the judgments r e afore-quoted cases, which w dgment in the case of UMA mistakable terms indicate that t a concept that is obliterated veral parameters laid down mistakable stream that runs dgments of the Court is that, re e employees engaged to work for considered, failing which, it rticle 14 of the Constitution of In . Therefore, on a blend of the ju ourt as afore-quoted, what wo merge is, the State practising e ould by judicial orders be curb gagements made in those cases, e case at hand even, I deem it titioners have in their prime yo e State, as daily wagers. They sition even today, with certain b me. They are in the last leg of the t directed to be regularised t emium on the act of the State, ex titioners, if left in the lurch w velihood after having served the spectively. . In the light of such exploitatio opped forthwith, the subject case here mandamus is required to be ses of the petitioners, but to re rection, if issued only to conside ll generate another round of litig nd, to handle against the pe andamus ensues in the case at ha om the brunt of another litigation

ith international standards and private sector to follow, thereby ment of labour practices in the gment passed in the case of Sri Secretary Government of 56 of 2024 (S-RES), decided on :- rendered by the Apex Court in were in the aftermath of the ADEVI (3) supra, would in regularization of employees is d, but could be considered on in the said judgments. One through judicial thinking of egularization of the services of r the State for long years should would amount to violation of ndia. udgments rendered by the Apex ould unequivocally mistakably exploitation of human labour, ed. The Apex Court terms the as exploitative engagements. In appropriate to observe that the outh worked for the services of y are continued to be in that benefits conferred from time to eir services. If their services are today, it would be putting a xploiting human labour, as these will have to wander for their State for 39 years and 32 years on which has to be stopped and e becomes a classic illustration e issued, not for considering the egularise their services, as any er the cases of the petitioners, it gation, as the State would get a etitioners. Therefore, positive and only to save the petitioners n."

4.

The never worked ag

5.

The hearing, learned consider and de judgments, with believe the autho

6.

The

7.

The found entitled, g adverse to his in hearing to him a legal redress ther

28.02.2025 ashok

e premise in the written statem gainst the sanctioned post. e aforesaid facts having been bro State counsel, on instructions, s ecide the claim of the petitione hin a period of 4 months, whic orities would not address in a jus e aforesaid satisfies the learned c e matter stands disposed of acco grant the benefit forthwith. Nee nterest, the same may be passed and shall contain reasons, wher reupon.

Whether speaking

ment is that the petitioner was ought out, during the course of states that the respondents shall r, taking note of the aforesaid ch this Court has no reason to st, fair and reasonable manner. ounsel for the petitioner. ordingly and if the petitioner is edless to say, if the orders are d after granting opportunity of reupon he shall be free to seek (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE : :