Bureaucratic Limitations Can’t Trump Legitimate Rights Of Workmen Who Have Served Continuously In Regular Roles For Extended Period: SC
The Supreme Court was deciding Civil Appeals, one filed by certain workmen and the other by the employer department - Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam.

The Supreme Court emphasised that bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in regular roles for an extended period.
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals, one filed by certain workmen and the other by the employer department i.e., Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “… 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, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.”
The Bench said that, 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.
Brief Facts
The Appellant-workmen claimed to have been engaged as Gardeners in the Horticulture Department of the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, since the year 1998. 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 alleged 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. In 2004, the Appellant-workmen along with many other similarly situated employees, raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, seeking regularization of their services and the requisite statutory benefits.
They contended 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. Since the above termination took place during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the Appellant Workmen argued that it violated Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the State Government referred the disputes to the Labour Court.
Labour Court’s Decision
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. The Labour Court then dismissed 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. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed several Writ Petitions before the High Court and the workmen also filed the same.
High Court’s Findings
The High Court partially modified the relief granted, directing re-engagement of the workmen on daily wages, with pay equivalent to the minimum in the regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing future consideration of their regularization if permissible by law. Resultantly, both the workmen and employer approached the Apex Court.
Apex Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, elucidated, “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.”
The Court further noted that the Judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 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”, it added.
The Court was of the view that, 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.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Workmen’s Appeal, dismissed the Employer’s Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Order to an extent, and directed the Employer to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the workmen within six months.
Cause Title- Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 144)
Appearance:
AORs Shantanu Kumar, Malak Manish Bhatt, Gautam Awasthi, Anzu. K. Varkey, Sriram P., Advocates Amiy Shukla, Shakti Vardhan, Devanshu Yadav, Kartik Yadav, Dinesh. P. Rajbhar, Girijesh Pandey, Alpana Pandey, Sohan Lal Adak, and Avanish Pandey.