The Supreme Court on Friday ,20th Dec.24, strongly criticised the growing prevalence of precarious employment arrangements, both in the gig economy and within government institutions, calling for fairer and more secure labour practices.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale observed that government departments must set a positive example by ensuring job security and fair treatment of workers, instead of engaging employees on temporary contracts for extended periods.
“The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious arrangements, often characterized by a lack of benefits, job security and fair treatment,” lamented the bench.
It underlined that government institutions must do better since they are entrusted with upholding principles of fairness and justice. “Government institutions, entrusted with upholding principles of fairness, bear a greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices,” said the bench.
The court was hearing an appeal by four housekeeping and maintenance staff who had been employed on ad hoc terms by the Central Water Commission (CWC) for over two decades before being abruptly terminated in 2018. It quashed their termination, ordered their reinstatement and directed that their services be regularised.
Also read – Rahul Jain joins Manipal Academy of Higher Education as Head-HR
The judgment highlighted how exploitative practices in the gig economy, marked by temporary and unstable work arrangements, are increasingly mirrored in government employment practices.
Bottom of Form
“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,” it said.
Stressing that engaging workers on temporary contracts for essential, recurring roles undermines both employee morale and public confidence, the court added: “Government institutions must lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. 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, the judgment held, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness. “This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country,” added the bench.
Making broader observations about the systemic misuse of temporary contracts, the court berated such as arbitrary terminations, denial of benefits, and lack of career progression for temporary workers, especially in public institutions.
“Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as ‘temporary’ or ‘contractual’, even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. This misclassification deprives them of dignity, security, and the benefits they are entitled to,” it said.
The bench also expressed concern about how the 2006 Uma Devi judgment, meant to curb illegal appointments, is being misinterpreted to deny legitimate claims of regularisation. “Government departments often weaponise the Uma Devi judgment against employees, overlooking its acknowledgment of cases where regularisation is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponising it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades,” maintained the bench.
In the facts of the present case, the court held that the petitioners’ long and uninterrupted service cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as temporary. “Their sustained contribution and the integral nature of their work demand recognition through regularisation,” held the court, further noting that their termination also violated principles of natural justice by not giving them a fair hearing before the termination orders.
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
