Bombay High Court Overturns Labour Court's Reinstatement Of Typist; Clarifies Regularization Criteria To Contractual Workers In State Instrumentalities

Background

MSEB contested the Labour Court's award dated 31 March 2005, which had granted Surve reinstatement as a regular employee with 50% back wages. Surve had been engaged as a typist by the MSEB on a purely contractual basis, being compensated Rs. 10 per 1,000 words typed. Her engagement began in 1987, and she continued until 1993, when her services were discontinued without a formal dismissal process. Following her termination, Surve approached the Labour Court, seeking reinstatement and permanency, claiming she had completed more than 240 days of continuous service annually between 1987 and 1993.

The Labour Court ruled in Surve's favor, directing her reinstatement with 50% back wages and granting her the status of a permanent employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ruling was based on the claim that Surve had worked for more than 240 days a year, which entitles contract workers to permanent status under the Model Standing Orders.

Arguments

MSEB, represented by Mr. A.R.S. Baxi, argued that Surve's engagement was purely contractual, with no formal employment relationship. The petitioner asserted that Surve was compensated on a work-for-hire basis, with no fixed working hours, no obligation to attend duties, and no inclusion in the organization's payroll or employee rosters. According to MSEB, her termination in 1993 was due to the completion of her contract, and there was no employer-employee relationship to justify permanency or back wages. The petitioner further emphasized that Surve was never appointed to a sanctioned post through a proper recruitment process. She was hired to perform a specific quantum of work, and her remuneration was based on the number of words typed, not the hours worked. MSEB contended that the Labour Court had erroneously assumed an employer-employee relationship, and its ruling was unsustainable under employment law.

Counsel for Surve, Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, argued that the termination of Surve's services was illegal because she had completed more than 240 days of service annually, entitling her to permanency under the Industrial Disputes Act. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs. Jet Airways Ltd. to argue that contract workers with continuous service are entitled to permanency under the Model Standing Orders. Surve had rendered consistent services for six years and was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

Judgement

Firstly, the Court highlighted that Surve's work was strictly contractual. Her engagement involved specific tasks (typing) for which she was compensated based on output, i.e., Rs. 10 per 1,000 words typed. There was no regular monthly salary, no obligation to attend duties at specific hours, and no fixed supervisory structure. The Court observed that the “Respondent was not under any obligation to attend duties for specific hours, nor was there any control over her activities similar to that exercised over regular employees.” This absence of control and supervision, the Court noted, is a critical factor in distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor. The Court also scrutinized the content of Surve's contract. The engagement letters made it clear that the work was task-based, and no rights of employment were conferred. The letter dated 15 January 1987 explicitly stated: “This engagement does not confer any right on the Respondent to claim appointment in the service of the Petitioner.” Justice Marne emphasized that Surve had no expectation of continued employment, nor was there any indication that she was ever part of the formal employment process at MSEB.

The Court further addressed the legal presumption surrounding the 240-day rule under the Industrial Disputes Act. While the completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year can entitle a worker to certain protections under the Act, the Court clarified that this rule cannot automatically convert a contract worker into a permanent employee in state instrumentalities like MSEB. The judgment stated: “Completion of 240 days of service does not, in itself, create any inherent right to permanency in state instrumentalities. This is subject to the availability of sanctioned posts and compliance with formal recruitment processes.” Justice Marne reiterated that MSEB, as a state entity, was bound by stricter employment rules, including the requirement of formal recruitment processes and sanctioned posts.

The judgment also addressed the Model Standing Orders, which Surve's counsel relied on to claim permanency. The Court, citing the Division Bench's decision in The Municipal Council Tirora & Anr. vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade, clarified that the Model Standing Orders applied primarily to private employment and were not directly applicable to state instrumentalities like MSEB. Lastly, even if Surve's engagement had constituted formal employment, the Court held that she would not have met the criteria for regularization as set out in the Constitution Bench ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi. The Umadevi judgment established that for a temporary or ad hoc worker to be regularized, they must be employed in a sanctioned post and must have been appointed through a proper recruitment process. Surve, however, had neither been appointed to a sanctioned post within the MSEB nor gone through any formal selection process. The Court emphasized that long service alone does not entitle a worker to permanency, particularly in government instrumentalities, where regularization is governed by strict constitutional requirements. Since Surve's engagement was informal and based on a contract for specific tasks, the criteria laid down in Umadevi could not be applied to her case.

While the Court set aside the Labour Court's award, it declined to order any recovery of the Rs. 5,92,156 that Surve had already withdrawn as interim compensation, holding that this sum could be considered as compensation in light of her long service. Thus, Justice Marne ultimately found that the Labour Court had overstepped by assuming an employer-employee relationship where none existed. The engagement between Surve and MSEB was purely contractual, based on specific tasks with no promise of continued employment. The Court held that “the Labour Court erred in directing reinstatement and the grant of permanency where no formal employment existed.”

The Executive Engineer V/S Suchita Vijay Survey

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.R.S. Baxi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Nerlekar with Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye and Mr. Akshay Pansare

Decided on: 09-10-2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order