M J Antony: Casual labour problem

OUT OF COURT

If the Supreme Court has to correct the high courts and the courts below in short judgements so often, there is something wrong in the system.

There has been an unusually large number of judgements from the Supreme Court in recent weeks dealing with the rights of daily-wage workers or casual labourers. In most cases, the labour courts and the high courts have gone wrong on basic principles and the Supreme Court has corrected them. This shows the chaotic state of law in this field.

Many cases are nearly two decades old, like those of Babu Ram and others who were employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation during the Kumbh mela in 1980 to meet the urgent needs of the festival. It was clearly mentioned in the appointment letter that their services were hired purely on a temporary basis and could be terminated without prior intimation at any time. Their services were terminated after they became redundant. The issue was taken to the labour authorities. The labour court directed the corporation to reinstate them with continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. The Allahabad high court upheld the order. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the courts below.

Another short judgement dealt with the right of a sweeper on daily wage, who left the service of a Haryana government undertaking on his own. After four years, he sent a demand notice through the labour officer asking for reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages. The management showed evidence to show that he had not completed 240 days in any of the three years he had worked. However, the labour court granted all his requests. Its order was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside those orders stating that he was appointed only as a daily worker and could not claim any right to a permanent post.

In a three-page judgement, the Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of the state tourism development corporation. The labour court found that the casual house assistant had worked 240 days and became eligible for the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. It ordered the corporation to reinstate him, with all benefits. The high court upheld the order. But the Supreme Court did the arithmetic again and found that the days he had worked did not touch 240. Whether the highest court of the land, burdened with constitutional issues, should have been compelled to do maths in such cases in another matter.

The Gujarat High Court granted daily wage workers benefits available to permanent employees of the state government, including leave travel concession, leave increment, various advances, and allotment of government quarters. The Supreme Court asked the high court to reconsider the order again, taking into consideration the principles laid down in its recent judgement in State of Karnataka vs Umadevi. In that constitution bench judgement, the court ruled that daily-wage earners have no right to regularisation. Similar judgements have been pronounced last month in the cases of Manager, RBI vs Gopinath Sharma and RSRTC vs Ramdhara Indoliya.

The high courts and labour courts have gone wrong not only in interpreting the law, but fallen behind in applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Some time ago, it had laid down in a series of judgements that the initial burden of proof to show that he had worked for 240 days in a year was on the worker (Reserve Bank of India vs S Mani; Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills vs Sowaran Singh). However, several high courts, not to talk of labour courts, seem not to have heard of the rule. In Surendranagar Distt Panchayat vs Gangaben, the Gujarat High Court put the burden on the employer. This was set aside by the Supreme Court. The Punjab & Haryana High Court again went wrong on this count in Ranjit Sagar Dam vs Sham Lal.

Sometimes, the wrong court claims jurisdiction and wastes years in deciding the case. In RSRTC vs Ramdhara, decided last month, a civil court dealt with the case of a conductor appointed on daily wages and granted him his prayers. The high court upheld it. On appeal, the Supreme Court admonished both for taking up an essentially labour dispute. In a series of judgements, the Supreme Court had categorically held that such disputes should not be entertained by the civil courts, but should be heard by an industrial court. The Supreme Court remarked that the high court had committed "a grave error".

The cross-section of cases shows how the labour law and its implementation should be streamlined. If the Supreme Court has to correct the high courts and the courts below in short judgements so often, there is something wrong in the system. This requires urgent examination in view of the current practice of keeping a large number of workers on a causal or temporary basis. Even in the case of organised labour, the situation is vague and ambiguous. If anyone is serious about labour law reforms this is the field which should get priority.