Employment LawCentral Administrative Tribunal Deems Long-Term Casual Workers as Regular Employees in Landmark Ruling

The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Manoj Kumar V. SAIL O.A No 051/000128/2017 decided on 12.03.2024 held  that casual workers who have worked for more than ten years or more will be considered as a regular employee.

FACTS

The Applicant in this case are the seven workers (hereinafter referred as ‘the Applicants’) working with Bharat Refractories Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BRL’), a public sector entity of Ministry of Steel, Government of India,further merged with SAIL (hereinafter referred as ‘the Respondent’), who all joined the organization in different positions between 14.04.1997 to 05.03.2004.

Out of all the Applicants, two got hired due to the demise of their relatives who were working for BRL. These workers were employed as casual employees but served for thirty years without being substantively employed. Their term was not changed from casual employee to regular employee, which lead them to not being able to receive the benefits of a regular employee. There exists a variety of difference, in terms of benefits between a regular employee and a casualemployee.

The Workers Union presented a Charter of Demands on 02.05.2003 that included regularization of casual employees, butthe management did not address these demands. This dispute was then raised before the Industrial Tribunal where the question was framed whether the workmen employed for more than 240 days in a year and the employee those have been serving for more than 20 years should get the recognition of a regular employee than a casual employee.

The Tribunal appreciated the right of those casual employees to be placed on a permanent basis but only if they had been in continuous service for more than ten years as on 02.05.2003. After the verdict by the Industrial Tribunal, 78 casual workers were allowed to be regularized. However, the Applicants were dismissed from service on the pretext that they did not serve for ten years as on the cutoff date, though some of them worked for more than two decades.

The Applicants duly contended that they were due for regularization in the same manner as the other workers, all the more because they have served for more than ten years and such service was accounted for in the company’s roll as on 02.05.2023.

ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

1. Whether the exclusion of the Applicants from regularization despite completing over ten years of continuous service is discriminatory?
2. Whether the Respondent have a compulsory order to regularize the Applicants based on the 1992 settlement and the 2011 Industrial Tribunal award?

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

The Applicants contented that they have not been regularized even after the award in favor of the casual workers which directed that the workers who have worked for more than ten years should be regularized. It was submitted that the management continued to regularize only some of the junior workers while dismissing the arguments of the concerned workmen who have filed the present Application.

 The Applicants submitted that they are doing regular and permanent work for more than 20 years without interruption. They have been paid wages same as the negotiated wages of other workers since 1985 and yet their call for regularization was ignored.

The Applicants cited a settlement and Agreement that was entered on 03.02.1992 between the workmen’s representative and the management to the effect that the management would regularize casual workers in two phases.

On the other hand, the Respondent contended that mere referral of the dispute by the State Government for determination is misconceived. The Respondent further contented that in the course of investigation, in no point of time did the Janta Mazdoor Sangh Union demanded to regularization of 119 casual workers with the management.

The Respondent argued that no list of the mentioned workers was attached to the letter dated 02.05.2003 rendering the reference for adjudication under Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to as the “ID Act”) invalid.

The Respondent further contented that they were placed under the Government organization SAIL following the merging of industries.  As a result, the Central Government alone has the authority to refer labor problems pertaining to the project. The Respondent argued that since they no longer had to abide by the Industrial Tribunal’s decision legally, their action was both legitimate and justifiable.

In these circumstances, the Respondent contended that it is clear that any award passed by this Tribunal in favor of the said concerned workmen may not be readily executable or enforceable or binding upon the Central Government undertaking such as SAIL etc.

DECISION AND FINDINGS

The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal along with the evidence provided by the Applicants as well as accepted facts of the case noted that the main contention of the case is the service regularization as claimed by the Applicants. The claim was raised on two primary grounds.

First, the said workmen had been continuously in service for more than 20-30 years taking up permanent and perennial responsibilities. However, they were retained in the organization to work as casual employees and remain uncovered for regularization. Second, they worked for almost two decades.

The Tribunal ruled that it amounted to unfair labor practices and labor exploitation when workers were kept on the employer’s payroll as casual employees even after they had been employed by the company for a number of years and the nature of their work was permanent. It therefore had the possibility to agree with the earlier determinations that Applicants were awarded their right to regularization on May 2, 2003 because all of them, had served the company for over ten straight years. It was discriminatory and against Section 14 of the Indian Constitution because certain Applicants were selectively regularized while others were not.

As regards regularization, the pay and service benefits should be at par with regular employees and the Hon’ble Tribunal held that such regularization is applicable to all employees of the Respondent who were continuously in employment as casual workers under the erstwhile BRL as employees for and on 02.05.2003. They have worked continuously for over two decades now and they should fall under the category of a regular employee as directed by the Industrial tribunal as well.

The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in its decision ordered the Respondent to implement the provisions of the 2011 Tribunal Award in Reference Case No. 02 of 2005 for the regularization without discriminating the employees.

AMLEGLAS REMARKS

The case highlights the unfair distinction made between casual and regular workers, particularly when both categories of employees carry out identical tasks over a long period. Such differentiation is not only discriminatory but also violates fundamental labor rights and principles of fairness. According to the law, employees performing permanent and regular duties for an extended period must be accorded the same rights and benefits as regular workers.

Differentiation among employees working in the same capacity is unjust and illegal. Both the Industrial Tribunal and the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and evidence, ruled in favor of the workers. Therefore, any employee who has worked for over ten years and performed tasks equivalent to those of regular employees ought to be granted the status and benefits of a regular employee.

– Team AMLEGALS