M J Antony: Utterly casual laws

OUT OF COURT

The legal status of casual and temporary workers has confounded both the labour and high courts

One subject that comes up frequently in recent Supreme Court judgements is the status of casual labourers employed both by government undertakings and private concerns. While the workers demand regularisation because of their long service and contribution of work equal to that of the regular employees, the managements deny these claims. The high courts give varying orders on these stands and the Supreme Court has to sort them out ultimately, though not satisfactorily.

In one typical case decided last week, the canteen employees of the Karnataka secretariat lost their battle against the government in the judgement, State of Karnataka vs KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association. The employees claimed that they were working for more than a decade on the minimum wages and they were entitled to regularisation on par with other employees doing similar work. The government denied any such obligation as it disowned the workers totally.

The high court compared the work of the canteen employees to those working in the Government Hospitality Organisation and, therefore, asked the state to regularise them with parity of wages. The state government moved the Supreme Court successfully. It over-ruled the high court and observed that merely because both groups of employees prepare and serve food, they could not be treated equally. This is not, perhaps, the end of such litigation as the judgements referring to canteen employees themselves have been in dozens.

Another recent decision was DG, Doordarshan vs Manas Dey. In this case again, the Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Calcutta High Court that had held that the temporary workers were entitled to the benefits under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Central government. However, the court had this to say about casual labourers: "It is up to the Union government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given 'temporary' status and later they are to be absorbed in Group D posts." Thus, the government has the power to formulate schemes regarding casual labourers.

Similarly, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Punjab State Electricity Board vs Darbara Singh. The high court had held that the workers, in this case, had rendered service of more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding their retrenchment and, therefore, they were entitled to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act dealing with regular staff.

It had upheld the order of the labour court that they should be reinstated with 25 per cent back wages. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the electricity board, stating that the engagement of the workers was for a specific period and conditional. It was clearly indicated to them that on the appointment of a regular employee, their engagement would come to an end.

The Allahabad High Court judgement in Kamala Nehru Memorial Hospital vs Vinod Kumar was quashed by the Supreme Court, again on the issue of continuous employment for 240 days in an establishment. The high court had held that termination of the employees was contrary to the UP Industrial Disputes Act and ordered reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages. The Supreme Court found that the service must be continuous for 240 days to entitle an employee to get the benefits under the law. It was not so in this instance. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the high court judgement.

The Supreme Court set aside another judgement of the Allahabad High Court involving a casual worker in Regional Manager, State Bank of India vs Rakesh Kumar Tewari. He was employed as a daily wager for 87 days and no appointment letter was issued to him. When he was terminated, he moved the labour court that held that the action of the bank violated Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The high court upheld this view and stated that the bank indulged in unfair labour practice. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court. It held that the orders of both the courts below were wrong.

In most such cases, the labour courts and the high courts have gone wrong and the managements had to approach the Supreme Court to get the final word. This shows that the law on this subject is ambiguous and needs attention by the Parliamentarians. This is urgent because of the current labour practice of keeping a large number of employees on a casual and temporary basis. There are often contractors between the casual workers of the lower strata, with no written records and little respect for labour norms. In the case of organised labour, the hazy laws are further confounded by tripartite agreements, union rivalries and government policies. Therefore, the labour law reforms must focus on this problem in the light of the judgements of the high courts and the Supreme Court.