The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that judicial orders directing the regularisation of long-term daily wage workers cannot be evaded by the State through superficial temporary schemes. In a landmark ruling, the Court held that when a tribunal mandates creation of posts and permanent engagement, the State is bound to comply in letter and spirit - not through procedural subterfuge.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, 34 daily-wage labourers, were engaged between 1991 and 1997 at the Mahendragiri Unit of the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC), a premier research facility under the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). Their duties included loading, unloading, shifting materials, packing, and other ancillary tasks essential to the functioning of the unit. Despite continuous engagement for periods ranging from 14 to 26 years, they were never appointed against any sanctioned posts and remained on a daily-wage basis without job security, benefits, or formal recognition.
Key Facts
- The appellants were engaged on a day-to-day basis through a token system, with no formal appointment orders or service records maintained.
- The Mahendragiri Unit is a prohibited area under the Official Secrets Act, necessitating strict security protocols.
- The respondents admitted that the nature of work performed by the appellants was not skilled or specialised, yet was continuous and integral to daily operations.
- No recruitment process was followed for their initial engagement, which the Court later characterised as a "backdoor entry."
- The appellants were never provided with identity cards, pensions, or any benefits available to regular employees.
Procedural History
- 1991 - 1997: Appellants engaged as daily-wage labourers at LPSC Mahendragiri.
- 1993: Respondent Centre formulated the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993" - but no action taken.
- 2009: Appellants filed Original Application (O.A. No. 455 of 2009) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking regularisation.
- 09.03.2010: CAT directed the respondents to frame a scheme or issue ad-hoc rules within six months, creating requisite posts for permanent engagement of such labourers, with preferential consideration for the appellants.
- 14.03.2011: High Court dismissed the State’s writ petition challenging the CAT order.
- 29.07.2011: Supreme Court dismissed SLP (C) No. 19200 of 2011, thereby affording finality to the CAT’s 2010 order.
- 03.09.2012: Respondents framed the "Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012" - providing for temporary engagement till age 60, without creation of posts.
- 10.10.2012: CAT dismissed contempt application filed by appellants challenging the scheme.
- 2015: Appellants filed O.A. No. 326 of 2015 before CAT challenging the validity of the 2012 Scheme.
- 14.07.2016: CAT dismissed the application.
- 25.04.2017: High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 8163 of 2017, remanding the matter to CAT for fresh consideration.
- 20.12.2018: CAT again dismissed the application.
- 18.05.2021: CAT dismissed review petition (R.P. No. 11 of 2019).
- 2019: Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019 before the Madras High Court.
- 08.07.2024: High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the 2012 Scheme.
- 28.03.2025: Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court.
- 29.04.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants
- Argued that the CAT’s 2010 order was final and binding, mandating permanent regularisation with creation of posts.
- Contended that the 2012 Scheme was a colourable exercise to evade judicial mandate by substituting "temporary" engagement for "permanent".
- Invoked Article 23 of the Constitution, arguing that prolonged exploitation of labour for perennial work without security constitutes forced labour.
- Emphasised that their 14 - 26 years of service, coupled with preferential consideration directed by CAT, entitled them to retrospective regularisation.
For the Respondents
- Claimed that the appellants were engaged only for sporadic, intermittent tasks and never against sanctioned posts.
- Asserted that no employer-employee relationship existed in the legal sense.
- Argued that the 2012 Scheme complied with the CAT’s directions by providing long-term temporary engagement till age 60 and preferential consideration for future Group-D posts.
- Relied on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi to contend that length of service alone cannot create a right to regularisation.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought:
- Quashing of the Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012
- Regularisation of their services with retrospective effect from the date of the CAT’s 2010 order
- Grant of permanent status with all attendant benefits
- Payment of arrears and benefits equivalent to regular employees
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 09.03.2010 mandated the creation of permanent posts and regularisation of the appellants’ services, and whether the "Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012" - which provided only temporary engagement without post creation - satisfied that judicial mandate.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on the final and binding nature of the CAT’s 2010 order, which had been affirmed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. They argued that the Tribunal’s direction to "create the requisite number of posts" and engage labourers "on a permanent basis" was not a suggestion but a mandatory directive. The phrase "permanent basis" was not ambiguous; it required structural change, not superficial continuity. The appellants invoked State of U.P. v. Hari Ram to argue that judicial orders must be implemented in substance, not in form. They further contended that the State’s failure to comply violated Article 14 by perpetuating arbitrariness and discrimination against a vulnerable workforce.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the CAT’s order merely directed the framing of a scheme to regulate engagement, not to create permanent posts. It argued that the 2012 Scheme fulfilled this by providing long-term temporary employment till age 60 and a pathway for future selection. It relied on Umadevi to assert that judicial intervention cannot override recruitment rules or create rights to employment where none existed. The State maintained that the appellants’ initial engagement was illegal and could not be sanctified by judicial order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous textual and contextual analysis of the CAT’s 2010 order. It rejected the State’s narrow reading that the order merely required a "scheme" in the abstract. The Tribunal’s language was unequivocal: it directed the creation of "requisite number of posts" and engagement "on a permanent basis." The Court observed:
"The emphasis was not merely on framing a scheme in abstract, but on structuring such engagement through the establishment of sanctioned posts, thereby ensuring continuity, accountability, and security considerations in a sensitive establishment."
The Court noted that the Tribunal had explicitly recognised the appellants’ 14 - 26 years of service and their experience, directing that they be given "preferential consideration" - an ancillary benefit contingent upon the primary mandate of permanent engagement. The Court held that the 2012 Scheme, by expressly stating that engagement was "without reference to the creation/availability of regular erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts," directly contravened the Tribunal’s directive.
The Court further held that the High Court had erred in reopening the merits of the case. Once a judicial order attains finality, subsequent proceedings are confined to examining compliance - not re-litigating the original issue. The High Court’s reliance on Umadevi was misplaced, as that case dealt with illegal appointments, not with implementation of binding judicial directions.
The Court also invoked the State’s constitutional obligation as a "model employer" under Article 14, emphasising that the dignity of labour - particularly in national projects - cannot be compromised by bureaucratic evasion. It drew a powerful analogy to the foundational efforts of India’s space programme, noting that the success of scientific missions depended on the invisible yet indispensable contributions of workers like the appellants.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 08.07.2024 and the Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012, insofar as it provided for temporary engagement without post creation. The Court directed the respondents to regularise the services of the appellants and grant them permanent status with effect from 09.09.2010 - the outer limit fixed by the CAT for scheme formulation - within four weeks from the date of this order. The benefit of this judgment shall extend to all similarly situated persons engaged under the 2012 Scheme.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Directions Cannot Be Circumvented by Temporary Schemes
- Practitioners must now argue that any scheme framed to comply with a judicial order must replicate its substance, not its form.
- Where a tribunal orders "permanent engagement" and "creation of posts," a temporary contract with no pathway to permanence is legally invalid.
- The burden shifts to the State to prove compliance - not to the worker to prove non-compliance.
Preferential Consideration Is Not a Substitute for Regularisation
- Preferential treatment in future recruitment cannot substitute for immediate regularisation when a court has mandated it.
- The Court’s direction to consider experience was ancillary to the primary mandate - not an alternative remedy.
- Employers cannot delay permanent status by promising "future vacancies" while continuing exploitative temporary arrangements.
State as Model Employer: A Constitutional Imperative
-
The State’s duty under Article 14 extends beyond formal compliance to substantive justice in service matters.
-
Prolonged denial of status to long-serving workers, even in sensitive establishments, constitutes arbitrariness.
-
Courts will not tolerate procedural evasion by the State, especially when national projects rely on such labour.
-
Practitioners representing daily wage workers should now cite this judgment to challenge any scheme that substitutes "long-term temporary" for "permanent" status.
-
Government departments must audit all past judicial orders on regularisation and ensure full implementation within statutory timelines.
-
Labour tribunals must now treat compliance with judicial orders as a non-negotiable duty - not a discretionary act.
