Supreme Court flags misuse of temporary contracts against part-time employees in government sector

The Supreme Court on Friday flagged the rampant misuse of temporary employment contracts which perpetuate a broader systemic issue undermining workers' rights and job security [Jaggo v. Union of India and Others]..A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale emphasized that it is imperative for government institutions and the public sector entities to uphold the principles of fairness and justice, and to refrain from engaging in exploitative employment practices that erode public trust and mirror the detrimental trends of the gig economy."In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations," the Court observed.The Court highlighted that initially, the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, but now they have just increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.Therefore, it asked the government departments to lead by an example and ensure that they provide fair and stable employment without adhering to any discriminatory approach."Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody," the Court emphasised..The appellants in the present case were engaged by the Central Water Commission (CWC) on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Specifically, the three appellants were appointed as Safaiwala in 1993, 1998 and 1999 respectively while a fourth was appointed as a Khallasi in 2004.Their responsibilities that included cleaning, maintaining office premises and performing essential housekeeping and support functions crucial to the smooth operation of the CWC. In 2015, the appellants sought regularization of their services by filing Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that their roles had evolved beyond part-time or contractual labels and were integral to the CWC's operations. However, in April 2018, CAT dismissed their application, concluding that the appellants were not engaged in regular vacancies, had not completed sufficient full-time service and did not meet the criteria for regularization. Following this dismissal, the appellants' services were abruptly terminated on October 27, 2018, without any show-cause notice. Subsequently, they approached the Delhi High Court challenging CAT's decision and seeking reinstatement and regularization. On August 8, 2023, the High Court too agreed with the CAT's findings and dismissed their plea.Aggrieved, the appellants moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court..The top court noted that the appellants had served for extensive periods, some exceeding two decades, performing essential duties that were integral to the daily functioning of CWC. It recognized that their long and uninterrupted service could not be dismissed merely due to the initial part-time or contractual labels."The appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work," the Court observed.The Court also deemed the termination of the appellants' services as arbitrary and without any justification."The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service," the Court highlighted..Further, the Court emphasized that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before adverse actions are taken against them.While allowing the plea of the appellants, the Court also pointed out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar roles had been regularized but not the appellants, thereby highlighting a lack of uniformity and potential discrimination in the treatment of the appellants compared to others."The preferential treatment accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter service durations and no educational qualification. This exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent department’s approach. Such disparity violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in law," the Court said while quashing the termination orders against the appellants.Therefore, it proceeded to direct the reinstatement of the appellants and the immediate regularisation of their services..Advocates Akshay Bedi, Mohd Anas, Ram Lal Roy, Udian Sharma, Kshitij Mudgal, Jaitegan Singh Khurana, Akshaya Jebakumar, Manav Mitra, and Anshul Rajora appeared for the appellants. The Central government was represented by Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj and Advocates Bhuvan Kapoor, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Vinayak Sharma, Shubham Saxena, Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Shashank Bajpai, and Dr N Visakamurthy represented the Union of India..[Read Judgment]