Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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

Latest Legal News