2025 LiveLaw (SC) 153

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VIKRAM NATH; J., PRASANNA B. VARALE; J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024; JANUARY 31, 2025
SHRIPAL & ANR. versus NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD
Labour Law - Indefinite temporary employment for permanent roles is contrary to
labour jurisprudence and principles of fairness. (Para 14 & 15)
Labour Law - Termination without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for employees engaged in essential duties, is illegal.
Bureaucratic limitations cannot override the rights of workmen serving in de facto
regular roles for extended periods. (Para 17)
Industrial Dispute - Reliance on Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 to deny regularization to
daily-wage employees is misplaced where the employment is irregular, not illegal,
and the employer has engaged in exploitative practices for years. (Para 14)
Industrial Dispute - Regularization - A general ban on fresh recruitment cannot
justify indefinite daily-wage status or unfair labour practices, especially where the
work is perennial and essential. (Para 14)
Industrial Dispute - The principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be casually
disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling
those of permanent employees. (Para 13)
Industrial Dispute - The employer's engagement of workmen in perennial municipal
functions, while denying them statutory benefits and equal pay for equal work,
constitutes an unfair labour practice. (Para 13)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U.P.) - Whether an individual is classified as regular
or temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment obligations under the Act must be met
in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without statutory
safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly. (Para 10)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8158-8179 OF 2024
For Parties: Ms. Amiy Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shakti Vardhan, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AOR Mr. Malak Manish
Bhatt, AOR Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dinesh. P.
Rajbhar, Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Adv. Ms. Alpana Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sohan Lal
Adak, Adv. Mr. Avanish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. These appeals, one filed by certain workmen (hereinafter, the workmen in all the
appeals are referred to as the Appellant Workmen) and the other by the employer
department i.e., Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent
Employer as the employer in all the appeals), arise out of a common final judgment and
order dated 01.03.2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ
Petition No. 13381 of 2012 and connected matters.
2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court considered the legality of two conflicting
sets of awards passed by the Labour Court, Ghaziabad—one set allowing reinstatement
of some workmen with partial back wages, and another set denying relief altogether to
other similarly placed workmen.
1
3. The factual matrix leading up to the appeal before us is as follows:
3.1. The Appellant Workmen claim to have been engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the
Horticulture Department of the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, since the
year 1998 (in some instances, since 1999). According to them, they continuously
discharged horticultural and maintenance duties— such as planting trees, maintaining
parks, and beautifying public spaces—under the direct supervision of the Respondent
Employer. They further allege that no formal appointment letters were ever issued to them,
and that they were persistently denied minimum wages, weekly offs, national holidays,
and other statutory benefits.
3.2. In 2004, the Appellant Workmen, along with many other similarly situated
employees, raised an industrial dispute (C.B. Case No. 6 of 2004) before the Conciliation
Officer at Ghaziabad, seeking regularization of their services and the requisite statutory
benefits. They contend that, upon learning of this demand, the Respondent Employer
began delaying their salaries and subjected them to adverse working conditions.
Eventually, around mid-July 2005, the services of numerous workmen were allegedly
terminated orally, without any notice, written orders, or retrenchment compensation.
3.3. Since the above termination took place during the pendency of the conciliation
proceedings, the Appellant Workmen argue it violated Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the State Government referred the disputes concerning
both (i) regularization and (ii) legality of the alleged termination, to the Labour Court,
Ghaziabad for adjudication.
3.4. The Labour Court proceeded to decide the references vide two orders:
(i) Order dated 03.06.2011: In numerous adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case
Nos. 448, 451, 467 of 2006, etc.), the Labour Court passed awards holding the
terminations illegal for want of compliance with Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement with 30% back wages.
(ii) Order dated 11.10.2011: However, in about 41 other adjudication cases (e.g.,
Adjudication Case Nos. 269, 270, 272, etc.), the Labour Court arrived at a contrary
conclusion, dismissing the claims on the finding that the concerned workmen had not been
engaged directly by the Nagar Nigam but rather through a contractor, and hence had no
enforceable right to reinstatement or regularization against the Respondent Employer.
3.5. Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the awards (i.e., those granting reinstatement),
the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, filed several writ petitions before the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Labour Court’s findings. On the
other hand, the workmen whose claims were dismissed by the other set of awards also
approached the High Court by filing their own writ petitions. All these writ petitions were
heard together, culminating in the common judgment dated 01.03.2019, which partly
modified the Labour Court’s conclusions.
3.6. Through the impugned judgment, the High Court held that while the Labour Court
was correct in exercising jurisdiction under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (since
municipalities could be treated as “industry”), there remained factual complexities as to
whether the workmen were genuinely on the rolls of the Nagar Nigam or were provided
by contractors. The High Court also noted that the State Government had, by
notifications/orders, placed a ban on fresh recruitments in Municipal Corporations, thereby
restricting direct appointments to any post. Ultimately, the High Court partially modified the
relief granted, directing re-engagement of the workmen on daily wages, with pay

2
equivalent to the minimum in the regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing future
consideration of their regularization if permissible by law.
4. Both the Appellant Workmen and the Respondent Employer have now approached
this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The workmen primarily seek full
reinstatement with back wages and a direction to secure their regularization, whereas the
Respondent Employer seeks to quash the modifications ordered by the High Court on the
ground that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting partial relief akin to regular
employees, contrary to constitutional provisions and the State’s ban on recruitment.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant Workmen made the following submissions:
I. Continuous Service & Comparable Duties: The Appellant Workmen had
continuously discharged horticultural and maintenance duties— like planting trees,
upkeep of public parks, and general beautification—under the direct supervision and
control of the Respondent Employer for periods often exceeding a decade. They insist
such longstanding, continuous work parallels that of permanent Gardeners.
II. Direct Engagement & Wage Disbursement: They aver that their wages, though
inadequate, were paid directly by the Horticulture Department of the Respondent
Employer, nullifying the Employer’s claim of contractual hiring. Muster rolls and internal
notes are cited to show direct employer-employee relations.
III. Illegal Termination: Alleging violation of Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Appellant Workmen maintain their abrupt termination in July 2005
(during pendency of conciliation proceedings) was devoid of due process and statutory
payments, rendering it patently illegal.
IV. Entitlement to Reinstatement & Regularization: Given their long service and the
principle of “equal pay for equal work,” the Appellant Workmen submit they deserve full
reinstatement with back wages and a legitimate pathway to regularization, as opposed to
the partial relief of mere daily-wage re-engagement prescribed by the High Court.
6. On the other, the learned counsel for the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar
Nigam made the following submissions:
I. Compliance with Constitutional Requirements: Emphasizing the constitutional
scheme of public employment, it is urged that there was (and remains) a ban on fresh
recruitment in Municipal Corporations, and no proper selection process was ever followed
to appoint the Workmen on any sanctioned posts.
II. No Direct Employer-Employee Relationship: The Respondent Employer
contends that all horticulture work was carried out through independent contractors
appointed via tender processes. It claims any partial wage documentation cited by the
Workmen fails to establish direct engagement.
III. Inapplicability of Regularization: Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs.
Umadevi1 , it is asserted that no daily wager can claim permanent absorption without
adherence to constitutional requirements and availability of duly sanctioned vacancies.
IV. Inadequate Proof of 240 Days’ Service: The Respondent Employer points out that
the Workmen did not convincingly demonstrate they completed 240 days of continuous
work in any calendar year, thus undermining the assertion that their cessation from service
was illegal.

1
(2006) 4 SCC 1
3
V. Challenge to Modified Relief: Finally, it argues that the High Court’s direction to
pay minimum-scale wages and to consider the Workmen for future regularization
oversteps legal boundaries, disregards the recruitment ban, and fosters an impermissible
avenue of public employment. The Respondent Employer, therefore, seeks the quashing
of the impugned judgment.
7. Having heard the arguments and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the nature of
engagement of the Appellant Workmen, the admitted shortage of Gardeners, and the
circumstances under which their services were brought to an end, merit closer scrutiny.
8. It is undisputed that, while the Appellant Workmen were pressing for regularization
and proper wages through pending conciliation proceedings, the Respondent Employer
proceeded to discontinue their services, without issuing prior notice or granting
retrenchment compensation. At this juncture, it is to have a look at the requirements of
Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has been reproduced
hereunder: -
“6E. [ Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged in certain circumstances during
the pendency of proceedings.
[Inserted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957.]
(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a
Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal in respect of an industrial
dispute, no employer shall, -
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the
workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them
immediately before the commencement of such proceeding, or
(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by
dismissal or otherwise any workman concerned in such dispute save with the express
permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the
employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned
in such dispute, - (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the
conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement
of such proceeding, or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge
or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise :
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been
paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the
authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the
employer.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) no employer shall during the
pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action
against any protected workman concerned in such dispute, -
(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service
applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceeding, or
(b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected
workman, such with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the

4
proceeding is pending. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a 'protected
workman' in relation to an establishment, means a workman who, being an officer of a
registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognized as such in
accordance with rules made in this behalf.
(4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognized as protected
workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall not exceed one per cent of the total
number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected
workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the
aforesaid purpose, the State Government may make rules providing for the distribution of
such protected workmen among various trade unions, if any, connected with the
establishment and the manner in which they may be chosen and recognized as protected
workmen.
(5) Where an employer makes an application to a Board, Labour Court or Tribunal
under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority
concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass, as expeditiously as
possible, such order in relation thereto as it deems fit.”
9. On a plain reading of this section, we can deduce that any unilateral alteration in
service conditions, including termination, is impermissible during the pendency of such
proceedings unless prior approval is obtained from the appropriate authority. The record
in the present case does not indicate that the Respondent Employer ever sought or was
granted the requisite approval. Prima facie, therefore, this conduct reflects a deliberate
attempt to circumvent the lawful claims of the workmen, particularly when their dispute
over regularization and wages remained sub judice.
10. The Respondent Employer consistently labelled the Appellant Workmen as casual
employees (or workers engaged through an unnamed contractor), yet there is no material
proof of adherence to Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which
mandates a proper notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as retrenchment compensation.
In this context, whether an individual is classified as regular or temporary is irrelevant as
retrenchment obligations under the Act must be met in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any
termination thus effected without statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly.
11. Furthermore, the Employer’s stance that there was never a direct employer-
employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated. If, in fact, the Appellant Workmen had
been engaged solely through a contractor, the Employer would have necessarily
maintained some form of contract documentation, license copies, or invoices
substantiating the contractor’s role in hiring, paying, and supervising these workers.
However, no such documents have been placed on record. Additionally, the Employer has
failed to establish that wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own Horticulture
Department, which strongly indicates direct control and supervision over the Workmen’s
day-to-day tasks is a hallmark of an employer-employee relationship. 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, or testimony from
the contractor’s representatives. The absence of these crucial elements undermines the
Employer’s claim of outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears that the Workmen were
reporting directly to the Horticulture Department officials, receiving instructions on their
duties, and drawing wages issued under the Municipality’s authority. This pattern of direct
oversight and wage disbursement substantially negates the narrative that they were
“contractor’s personnel.” Consequently, the discontinuation of their services carried out
without compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to notice, retrenchment
5
compensation, or approval under Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on
precarious ground. The very foundation of the Employer’s defense (i.e., lack of an
employeremployee relationship) is not supported by any credible or contemporaneous
evidence.
12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that
the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer’s municipal
functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts.
Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based. Reliance on a
general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to longserving
workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad
Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not
intermittent.
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant
Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and
inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour
practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court,
cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles
resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the
Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual
engagements.
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 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 contractorbased 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 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
India3 in the following paragraphs:
“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
arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such

2
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
6
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.
………
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 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 labelled 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.
• 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.”
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt
terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure
of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant
Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court
recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to
afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree
of statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant
Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established
that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties,
these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal
budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not
absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed,

7
bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant
Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages,
is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected without
compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In
consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the
date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective
posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the
date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until
actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential
benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50%
of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement.
The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the
date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for
regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly
considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to
permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational
or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that
sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall
expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are
not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the
appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. No orders as to costs.

© All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw Media Pvt. Ltd.

*Disclaimer: Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website. Access it here