It Is Not The Function Of A High Court To Frame A Scheme: SC [Read Judgment]

Union of India had approached the Apex Court against the High Court order which framed a scheme itself to regularize the services of the Casual Paid Labourers and granted them the benefits similar to those of the regular employees under all the Labour Laws, and issued a mandamus to the Government to implement it.

Some Trade Unions had filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming a relief for regularization of the casual workers, who were working for a considerable long period in one project undertaken by the BRO in the State of Uttarakhand for construction of roads for going to pilgrimage of Char Dham Yatra. According to them these workers though working for number of years for the Union of India and rendering their services, but they were neither being regularized in the Government set up as a Government employee and nor were being paid regular salary/perks/facilities which were being paid to Government employees and nor they were being provided with any protection which was available to any Government employee 

The Apex Court noted that, in another case which raised similar issue, the Supreme Court had directed the Union of India would consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme for absorption and regularisation of the services of the casual workers engaged by the BRO for execution of its ongoing projects.

While setting aside the High court order, the bench further observed:

"The High Court failed to see that it is not the function of the Courts to frame any Scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the Government to do it. . All that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct the Government to consider for framing an appropriate Scheme having regard to the facts and circumstances of any case which this Court did in the case of Union of India(supra) but not beyond it. It is only in an exceptional case where the Court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so but not otherwise."

Read Judgment