28 Years of Service Can’t Be Labelled Temporary: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Regularization of Daily Wage Workers in Municipal Water Supply

“Work of Perennial Nature Cannot Be Met With Perpetual Uncertainty” – In a significant ruling that reinforces the rights of long-serving daily wage employees performing essential municipal duties, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed Writ Appeal, upholding a Labour Court award and a subsequent single judge decision that directed regularization and payment of SSR wages to daily wage workers engaged for nearly three decades in water supply operations in Dharmavaram Municipality.

The division bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that the appellant-municipality failed to rebut the existence of an employer-employee relationship or provide any credible proof of third-party contractor engagement. Applying the Supreme Court’s precedent in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, the Court affirmed that continuous engagement in essential duties for over 28 years warranted regularization, and that long-serving workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty.

“Absence of Contractor Evidence and Direct Wage Payments by Municipality Show Employer-Employee Relationship”

Rejecting the municipality's contention that the workers were supplied by a Labour Contract Society, the Court relied heavily on the factual findings of the Industrial Tribunal and cross-examination of the Assistant Engineer (MW-1), who admitted that the water supply duties were continuous and supervised by the municipality.

Quoting from Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, the Court emphasized:

"Had there been a legitimate third-party contractor, one would expect to see details such as tender notices, contract agreements, attendance records maintained by the contractor... The absence of these crucial elements undermines the Employer’s claim of outsourced engagement."

The Court noted that no muster rolls, tenders, invoices, or agreements were ever produced to establish third-party outsourcing. On the contrary, wages were paid directly by the Municipality, and work was supervised by its officers.

“Daily-Wage Label Cannot Defeat Legal Rights When Duties Are Essential and Continuous”

The Court found it significant that workers had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each year, and were engaged in essential water-supply services since 1997, amounting to over 28 years of service. The Bench stated:

"As held by the Apex Court in Shripal, as they were engaged in essential/perennial duties, they cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty." [Para 9]

The Court reiterated that the use of daily-wage classification to deny rightful benefits and protections was unacceptable, particularly when the nature of work was perennial, and the engagement lasted decades without interruption.

“Uma Devi Doctrine Distinguishes Between Illegal and Irregular Appointments” – Regularization Justified

Addressing the Municipality's reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), the High Court clarified that the Uma Devi ruling does not apply where engagements are irregular, not illegal, and meet long-term and essential operational needs.

Citing Shripal, the Bench observed: "Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment." [Shripal, Para 14]

It held that the absence of a valid contractor arrangement, the direct supervision, and non-adherence to recruitment formalities by the Municipality, cannot be allowed to defeat the equitable entitlements of the workers.

“Equal Pay for Equal Work”: SSR Wages Rightly Granted by Industrial Tribunal

The Court also upheld the award of Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) wages, stating that:

"By requiring the same tasks... as from regular [municipal] staff but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently, the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice." [Shripal, Para 13]

The Tribunal’s award had directed payment of wages as per the M-Book SSR rates, citing the principle of equal pay for equal work, and the same had been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench found no infirmity in this conclusion.

“No Legal Error or Infirmity Warranting Interference in Writ Appeal”

The High Court concluded that both the Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had delivered well-reasoned orders based on undisputed facts, and that there was no perversity or error of law justifying interference.

"There are no merits in the appeal and the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court on facts or law. Hence, this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed." [Para 10]

Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed, with the Court ordering no costs, and closing all pending miscellaneous applications.

Regularization and SSR Wages Affirmed for Workers After 28 Years of Service

This judgment marks a strong reaffirmation of labour rights, especially in the public sector, and sends a clear message that long-term engagements in essential functions cannot be shielded behind contractual or daily-wage labels. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has ensured that exploitative practices under the guise of temporary employment are not tolerated, especially where public institutions are the employers.

Date of Decision: 14th November 2025