Karnataka High Court
Indiramma vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533
WP No. 86327 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 86327 OF 2012 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. INDIRAMMA,
W/O LATE LAXMIPATHI,
AGE 36 YEARS,
OCC. COOK, R/O H.No.1-6-135,
AMBABHAVANI AREA,
INDIRA NAGAR, RAICHUR.
2. KHALEEL AHMED,
S/O MOHD.SAB,
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. ASST. COOK,
R/O H.No.4-4-848/76,
ZAHEERABAD, RAICHUR.
Digitally
signed by 3. ERAMMA,
KIRAN
KUMAR R W/O NAGENDRA,
Location:
HIGH COURT AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. COOK,
OF
KARNATAKA R/O ARALIBENCHI,
POST:NALAL TQ. & DIST.RAICHUR-585101.
4. NARASAMMA,
W/O NARASAPPA, AGE 36 YEARS,
OCC. NIGHT WATCHMAN,
R/O RALKAPUR TQ. &
DIST. RAICHUR-585101.
5. ANJANAPPA,
S/O BOJARAPPA,
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. HELPER,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533
WP No. 86327 of 2012
R/O H.No.8-7-17, HARIJAN WADA,
RAICHUR-585 101.
6. GOPAL,
S/O HUSSAINAPPA,
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. HELPER,
H.No.4-3-73, MANGALWARPETH,
RAICHUR.
7. URKUNDAMMA,
W/O HANMANTHU,
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. COOK,
R/O H.No.4-3-63,
MANGALWARPETH, RAICHUR.
8. SABAMMA,
W/O RAMANNA,
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC. COOK,
R/O H.No.1-11-46/52,
RANA PRATAP SINGH COLONY,
RAMPUR TALUK AND DIST. RAICHUR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VILAS KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ
DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533
WP No. 86327 of 2012
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION)
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY,
AN ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
DEPARTMENT, CFC BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-585 101.
6. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARTI PATIL., HCGP FOR R-1 TO 3 & 6; SRI. SHARANABASAPPA.K., BABSHETTY, FOR R-4; SRI. GOURISH.S.KESHAVPUR., FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY LABOUR COURT GULBARGA PASSED IN REF.No.132/11 DATED:11.7.12 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER FOR THE REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.08.2024, COMING ON FOR -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, by which the Labour Court has rejected the Reference.
2. On 28.08.2011, the Government of Karnataka referred the dispute as to whether the respondents therein (State, Executive Director of Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society; Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur; and the District Officer, Social Welfare Department) were right in not regularizing the services of the claimants.
3. It was the case of the petitioners that they were working as Cooks, Assistant Cook, Helpers and Watchman at Morarji Desai Residential School Hostels and they had been appointed in accordance -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 with law through the District Committee of Social Welfare Department which had passed a resolution for selecting the petitioners.
4. It was contended that they were working from several years and were therefore entitled to be regularized. They stated that they were aggrieved by a Notification by which tenders have been called for to engage employees on contract basis and since this would result in their removal, they were constrained to raise a dispute.
5. In response, the State Government entered appearance and contested the proceedings by filing objections. The State denied all the contentions raised by the petitioners and stated that they were not entitled to regularization. It was, however, admitted that the petitioners were working in the Moraji Desai Government Residential Hostel as piece-
rate workers and their appointment was only for a temporary period till permanent appointment was -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 made to the posts according to the Rules of Recruitment.
6. They contended that their claim for regularization cannot be considered since the Government had not given permission after 01.07.1984 to engage any daily wage workers and, therefore, the petitioners could not be permitted to seek regularization.
7. The petitioners adduced evidence by examining one of themselves and got two documents marked. On behalf of the State, no evidence was adduced.
8. The Labour Court on consideration of the evidence produced recorded a finding that as per Annexure-A to the Reference, it was clear that the petitioners had worked in the Social Department as Assistant Cooks, Helpers and Watchman right from 1995 and it was clear that they had rendered service in the Social Welfare Department for a fairly long period. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
9. However, the Labour Court took the view that merely because they had rendered service for a very long period that would not confer a right on them to seek regularization.
10. The Labour Court, placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Umadevi's case1, has come to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners could not be regularized and accordingly, rejected their Reference.
11. Aggrieved by this rejection of their Reference, the petitioners are before this Court.
12. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. P. Vilas Kumar appearing for the petitioners contended that the fact that the petitioners had rendered services in excess of 20 years was not in dispute and the Labour Court has affirmed this fact by recording a clear finding in that regard. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners, having rendered service in excess of two 1 State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 decades, were entitled to be regularized since their appointments could, at best, be considered as irregular. It was stated that since the petitioners were continued for a very long period, it was obvious that their employment was permanent in nature and the jobs entrusted were also perennial in nature.
13. He submitted that the judgment rendered in Umadevi's case can have no application in cases of this kind where the workman had rendered services for more than two decades and were still employed by the respondents.
14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the order of the Labour Court and contended that Umadevi's case prohibited the regularization of improperly appointed persons and no fault can thus be found with the award of the Labour Court.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
15. On 20.08.2024, the State placed on record the communication dated 17.08.2024, in which it was stated that petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 continued to work at Morarji Desai Residential School on Ashapur Road, Raichur. It was also stated that petitioner No.6 had suffered a paralytic stroke and that his son is working on his behalf. It was also stated that petitioner No.1 was dead and petitioner Nos.2, 7 and 8 were employed elsewhere.
16. This Court took note of the fact that the Government Pleader admitted that the petitioners were working at Morarji Desai Residential School from the year 2000, but he contended that they were not entitled to regularization.
17. In light of the submissions made, this Court directed respondent No.4 to file an affidavit as to how many years petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 were working in the school.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
18. In response, respondent No.4 through its Executive Director has filed an affidavit stating that as per the records, the 3rd petitioner had joined Morarji Desai Residential School, Ashapur Road, Raichur on 01.09.2000 as a 'Cook' and she had been continued to work as a Cook in said school even as on date and was being paid a sum of Rs.14,427/- per month after deductions.
19. It was stated that petitioner No.4 had joined the school on 01.09.1997 as a 'Night Watchman' and had continued her service till date and was drawing a sum of Rs.12,299/- per month after deductions.
20. It was stated that petitioner No.5 had joined the school on 22.06.1996 as 'Helper' (peon) under temporary daily wages scheme and continued to be in service till date through ARC out-source agency and was drawing a sum of Rs.12,299/- per month after deductions.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
21. It was stated that petitioner No.6 had joined the services of the school as 'Helper' (cleaning staff) on 1997 and he continued to work till December, 2020. But, thereafter, he suffered a paralytic stroke and his son Hussinappa had therefore replaced him. He was continued as a 'Helper' from 01.01.2021 and was being paid a sum of Rs.12,299/- per month after deductions.
22. It is also stated that petitioner Nos.3 to 5 were working as employees of an outsourcing agency, namely ARC Agency.
23. It is thus clear from this affidavit that the present petition will have to be confined only to petitioner Nos.3 to 6, since all of them have been working for more than 20 years.
24. The claim of the 1st petitioner would not survive since he is no more and the claim of the 2nd, 7th and 8th
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 petitioners need not be considered since they were employed elsewhere.
25. The case of petitioner No.6, though not working as of now due the stroke that he suffered, would also have to be considered since he had been working for 22 years before he was afflicted with illness and as a result of which his son has continued in his place.
26. The principal argument advanced by the learned AGA is that there is a clear bar for regularization of employees who have been appointed without following any procedural Rules after 1st July, 1984. It is sought to be contended that the post to which the petitioners were appointed were not sanctioned posts, and, therefore, they cannot take the benefit of the judgment of Umadevi's case and that Umadevi's case, in fact, barred the regularization.
27. The argument that there was a complete bar for entertaining any plea for regularization in light of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 judgment rendered in Umadevi's case cannot be accepted.
28. Though there are a number of decisions rendered by the Apex Court wherein it is held that regularisation is an exception -- only if initial appointment was irregular and the person so appointed had worked for more than 10 years without Court intervention -- the decision rendered in Umadevi and the guidelines laid therein cannot, as also explained by the Apex Court in other cases, be used as a shield to exploit contract workers endlessly.
29. In this regard, it would be pertinent to consider a few judgments of the Apex Court which take note of the above observation to interpret Umadevi accordingly.
30. The Apex Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari2 considered another judgment rendered by it in 2 Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 M.L.Kesari3 to interpret the decision rendered in Umadevi as extracted below:
"4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] as well as the subsequent decision of this Court explaining Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], we are of the view that the High Court has erred in taking an impractical view of the directions in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] as well as its consideration in Kesari [State of Karnataka v.
M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] .
5. The decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was intended to put a full stop to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing daily-wage 3 State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 workers and continuing with them indefinitely. In fact, in para 49 of the Report, it was pointed out that the rule of law requires appointments to be made in a constitutional manner and the State cannot be permitted to perpetuate an irregularity in the matter of public employment which would adversely affect those who could be employed in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is for this reason that the concept of a one-time measure and a cut-off date was introduced in the hope and expectation that the State would cease and desist from making irregular or illegal appointments and instead make appointments on a regular basis.
6. The concept of a one-time measure was further explained in Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows: (SCC pp. 250- 51, paras 9-11)"
"9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], each department or each
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 instrumentality should undertake a one- time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10- 4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4- 2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation.
The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] as a one- time measure."
7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid."
(emphasis supplied)
31. It is thus clear that the decisions rendered in Umadevi and M.L. Kesari aimed at curbing the exploitative practice of appointing workers on an irregular or daily-wage basis and keeping them in continued employment without regularisation.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
32. In a recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo's case4, the Apex Court considered the case of Vinod Kumar5 to explain the ratio laid down in Umadevi's case and the manner in which it is to be construed, in the following terms -
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod 4 Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826.5
Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, 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 employment
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. 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.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to 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, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 they are meant to embody. 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."
(emphasis supplied)
33. In light of the above judgment, it is clear that the reliance placed by the State on the judgment rendered in Umadevi's case to contend that there can be no orders passed regularizing the service of daily wage employees, cannot be accepted.
34. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that the State Governments were overlooking the judgments explicit acknowledgement in cases where the regularization was appropriate but its selectively application was distorting the spirit and purpose of Umadevi's judgment.
35. It has also been clearly explained that this judgment was used to indiscriminately reject the case of the employees even in the cases where appointments
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 were not illegal but merely lacked adherence to procedural formalities.
36. The principles laid down in the judgment in Jaggo's case has been reiterated by the Apex Court in another recent judgment rendered in Shripal's case6 wherein the Court, while dealing with the contention of the respondents therein regarding the inapplicability of regularisation to a daily-wager as contemplated in Umadevi's case, has interpreted the judgment rendered in Umadevi and made clear distinction between appointments which were "illegal" from those "irregular", while also holding that the latter would be eligible for absorption when the criteria mentioned in said judgment are met. It was also made clear that Umadevi could not be used to justify exploitative engagements. The relevant paragraphs have been reproduced below: 6
Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 dd.31.01.2025.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 "14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records--despite directions to do so--allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India..."
37. It may also be pertinent to state here that in Shripal's case, the Apex Court was dealing with a case similar to the present case, inasmuch as it was dealing with the claim of employees who were working as gardeners' for more than 10 years and their claim for regularisation had been negatived by the labour Court and affirmed by the High Court.
38. However, despite these rulings, the continued practice of irregular appointments and dismissals -- effectively exploiting part-time employees by withholding regular employment benefits while also
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 ensuring that they are appointed temporarily against no sanction post -- is still widely prevalent. This was precisely the kind of unfair practice that Umadevi and M.L. Kesari sought to eliminate.
39. It is therefore clear that the reliance placed on the interpretation of Umadevi's case by the Labour Court as well as by the State is incorrect and cannot be accepted.
40. As in the above cases, even in this case, the respondents have embarked upon the practice of issuing tenders and outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of the judicial proceedings and it is, in fact, the clear finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioners have admittedly been serving the social welfare Department for a very long time.
41. In fact, the Executive Director has filed an affidavit in which he categorically admits that petitioner Nos.3 to
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 6 have rendered for more than 20 years and petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 continued to work even to this date albeit through an outsourcing agency.
42. In other words, the petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 have rendered 24, 26 and 27 years of service continuously which, in the normal course of employment, would be the regular tenure of a regularly appointed employee of the State Government.
43. The fact that the petitioners were appointed for low skilled jobs such as -- cook, watchman and helper, by itself, indicates that there was no need for any formal education qualifications, and having regard to their long standing service rendered in the Residential Schools, the refusal to register regularize their service, in my view, would be a travesty of justice.
44. It may also be pertinent to state here that for the region of Hyderabad-Karnataka, an amendment was
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 made to the Constitution and Article 371J was inserted which provided for the President to give a special responsibility to the Governor to provide for the matters stated therein.
45. In fact, Article 371J (2)(b) provided in the matter of recruitment as follows:
"Article 371J: Special provisions with respect to the State of Karnataka (1)...
(2) An order made under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) may provide for--
(b) Identification of posts or classes of posts under the State Government and in anybody or organisation under the control of the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and for appointment thereto by direct recruitment or by promotion or in any other manner as may be specified in the order."
46. It is therefore clear that this Constitutional provision itself provides for appointment by direct recruitment
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 or by promotion or in any other manner as may be specified in the order.
47. As provided under Article 371J, the President has passed an order on 26.10.2013 conferring special responsibility for the establishment of a development Board and for matters connected therewith as referred to in Article 371K (1) and (2).
48. The Governor, in exercise of his powers under the Presidential order, on 06.11.2013, has also issued an order titled "The Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad- Karnataka Region) Order, 2013" in which Clause 13C in relation to "Protection and promotion of rights of local candidates" reads as follows:
"13C: Protection and promotion of rights of local candidates: Local candidates who had been appointed by the Government on local basis and who have worked for more than 10 years prior to 01-01-2013; or local candidates who have worked on daily or
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 contract basis in Government for more than 10 years prior to 01-01-2013 and fulfill conditions as prescribed may be given certain concessions in appointment and other benefits as prescribed by the Government."
49. As could be seen from said clause, for the persons in Hyderabad Karnataka region, who have rendered ten (10) years of service prior to 01.01.2013, it is the constitutional mandate that they are required to be protected, promoted and also be given certain concessions in the matter of recruitment.
50. The manner of recruitment contemplated would not only include direct recruitment or promotion but any other manner of recruitment. Since, this clause specifically deals with a daily wager or a contractual employee who has rendered more than 10 years of service prior to 01.01.2013, it is obvious that the other manner referred to in the order can only be relatable to regularisation.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
51. It is, however, to be stated that the concessions have not been prescribed by the framing of rules relating to regularisation, but the fact remains that there is a constitutional mandate to grant a concession to persons in the matter of regularization if they have put in service of more than ten (10) years of service as daily wagers or as contractual employees prior to 01.01.2013.
52. In light of this Governor's Order issued under Article 371J, it is obvious that the judgment of Umadevi's case can also have no application since the residents of Hyderabad-Karnataka region, who have worked for more than 10 years as a daily-wager or as a contractual employee, have been conferred a constitutional right to be given concessions in the matter of this recruitment. Consequently, their right to be recruited by means of regularization, if they have rendered service for more than ten (10) years prior to 01.01.2013, cannot be denied and sets their
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012 case apart from the regular claims of regularisation by persons from the other parts of the country which do not have this Constitutional provision.
53. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
54. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner Nos.3 to 6 have rendered service for more than twenty (20) years and have continued to discharge their duties, they shall be regularized forthwith.
55. The petitioners shall not, however, be entitled to any backwages for their past service.
56. However, they will be entitled for consideration of their service as permanent employees from the expiry of ten (10) years from the date of their initial appointment for the purposes of calculating their retirement benefits and pension.
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
57. As far as petitioner No.6 is concerned, since petitioner No.6 has also worked from 1998 till 2016 i.e., for 22 years, as already held above, he would also be entitled to be regularised on the expiry of his completion of 10 years of service.
58. By virtue of this order of regularisation, he would be a regular employee and on him suffering a paralytic stroke, his son would be entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Therefore, his son who is admittedly working on his behalf, he would be deemed to have been appointed on compassionate basis and he will be treated as a regular employee from the date he has been engaged.
59. It is made clear that the obligation of the State to pay pension to the 6th petitioner shall continue to subsist if he possessed the requisite qualifying service from the date of his regularization i.e., ten (10) years from the date of his initial appointment. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1533 WP No. 86327 of 2012
60. Since petitioner No.1 is no more and petitioner Nos.2, 7 and 8 are employed elsewhere, the rejection of their reference insofar as they are concerned, is affirmed.
61. In view of the disposal of this petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 48 Sl No.: 1