IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

Workers Under Social Forestry Scheme to Be Considered for Regularization, Not Direct Permanency: Bombay High Court

02 October 2024 11:21 AM

By: sayum


Bombay High Court, in the case of Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division & Ors. v. Vijaya Balbhim Mali, set aside the Industrial Court's order granting permanent status to daily wage workers engaged under the Social Forestry Scheme. Instead, the Court directed that their cases be re-evaluated for regularization under various Government Resolutions (GRs), with monetary and retirement benefits to be considered for eligible workers.

The petition was filed by the Social Forestry Division challenging the Industrial Court’s order from 2001, which granted permanent status to daily wage workers employed for tasks such as plantation and tree maintenance under the Social Forestry Scheme. The department contended that these workers were "seasonal" and not entitled to permanency because no sanctioned posts existed for their employment. The workers were hired between 1985 and 1991, and their services were continued due to status-quo orders during litigation.

Application of the Kalelkar Award: The Industrial Court had applied the Kalelkar Award to grant permanency to workers after five years of service. The petitioners argued that the Award only conferred CRTE (Converted Regular Temporary Establishment) status and not permanent government posts.

Constitutional Principles from Umadevi Judgment: The petitioners cited the Umadevi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that regularization in government service cannot be claimed without following due process. They argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its powers by granting permanency in violation of Umadevi.

Government Resolutions for Regularization: Various GRs from 1996, 2012, and 2018 provided a framework for the regularization of daily wage workers who had completed five years of service. The petitioners requested the Court to remand the case for reconsideration under these schemes.

Kalelkar Award – CRTE Status, Not Permanency: The Court clarified that the Kalelkar Award provides for the grant of CRTE status to workers completing five years of continuous service, but it does not create permanent posts in government service. "The Industrial Court erred in directly granting permanency instead of recognizing the CRTE status," observed the Court. The workers should have been considered for regularization under government schemes, not outright permanency.

Principles from Umadevi Applied: The Court emphasized that Umadevi prevents courts from granting permanency to casual workers without sanctioned posts. However, the Court acknowledged that workers could be regularized under specific government schemes.

Regularization under Government Resolutions: The Court highlighted that various GRs allow for the regularization of daily wage workers, such as those issued in 1996, 2012, and 2018. The Court directed the Social Forestry Division to consider the workers' cases for regularization under these GRs, with the condition that workers who had been terminated before 2012 would not be excluded if they met the criteria for continuous service.

Consequential Benefits: Eligible workers who met the service requirements under these schemes would be absorbed and granted monetary and retirement benefits. The Court instructed the department to deduct the compensation already paid to the workers at the time of their termination.

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reaffirms the legal principle that casual or daily wage workers cannot claim permanent government posts without sanctioned positions or adherence to a formal regularization process. Instead, the Court directed that the workers' claims be re-evaluated under applicable government schemes, aligning with the constitutional principles of equality in public employment.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2024

Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division & Ors. v. Vijaya Balbhim Mali

Similar News