Case Name: Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024
Date: January 31, 2025
Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
FACTS OF THE CASE
The claimants (Shripal & other workmen) have been working as a gardener (Malis) in the Horticulture Department of Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad from 1998-1999. The work consisted of planting trees and maintaining horticulture parks. The workers alleged that there were no formal appointment letters issued to them, statutory benefits were refused, and there was a summary termination of their services in the year 2005 during the conciliatory proceedings which were aimed at regularization and granting of statutory benefits. Although a small group of workers received 30% wage reimbursement, others were not paid because they were expected to work for the subcontractors. The Supreme Court altered the rates and, instead of their re-employment, required them to be re-employed on the daily wage basis, but did not take it all the way and did not pay back pay. Workmen and Nagar Nigam have both approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether the dismissal of workmen in the conciliation stage has been found to be objectionable under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
- Whether the employees were directly hired by Nagar Nigam or recruited by contractors, which impacts their entitlement to reinstatement?
- Whether the High Court was justified in a limited relief offered (daily wage re-engagement), rather than a full reemployment and back wages?
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
- Section 6E (U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) – Prohibits alteration of service conditions, including termination, during pending conciliation or industrial dispute proceedings.
- 6N (U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) – Retrenchment needs to be done with notice, compensation, and as per statutory procedure.
- Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Employees doing essentially the same type of work shall receive equal salary and benefits.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT WORKMEN
The workmen contended that they were engaged directly by the Nagar Nigam and performed duties identical to regular gardeners. They argued that their wages were paid by the Horticulture Department, and their abrupt termination in 2005 violated Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as no notice, compensation, or approval from the appropriate authority was obtained. They emphasized that they had completed 240 days of service in a year, making their retrenchment illegal. The appellants further relied on the principle of equal pay for equal work, arguing that they should be treated as permanent employees with back wages and benefits.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT NAGAR NIGAM
The Nagar Nigam contended that the workmen were never directly employed but were engaged through independent contractors. It argued that the municipal corporation was under a ban on fresh recruitment, making regularization impossible. Citing State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), the respondent maintained that no daily wager can claim permanent employment without adherence to constitutional norms. Additionally, the Nagar Nigam argued that the workmen failed to prove continuous service for 240 days, a requirement for claiming retrenchment benefits. The employer also challenged the High Court’s direction to pay minimum wages, asserting it was beyond legal limits.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court examined whether the workmen were indeed employed through contractors or directly by the Nagar Nigam. The employer failed to produce any contract documents, invoices, or tender records to establish a contractor-based arrangement. Further, the wages were paid directly by the Horticulture Department, and workmen reported to Nagar Nigam officials, indicating a direct employer-employee relationship. The termination was found to be illegal as it was carried out during conciliation proceedings without following Section 6E requirements. The Court also noted the exploitation of temporary workers and reaffirmed the principle that continuous employment over a decade cannot be disregarded under the pretext of contractual hiring. The Umadevi judgment was distinguished, as it does not protect prolonged unfair labor practices.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the workmen, declaring their termination illegal due to non-compliance with Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It quashed the High Court’s order of daily-wage re-engagement and directed reinstatement with continuity of service. The Court awarded 50% back wages and ordered the Nagar Nigam to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularization. The employer was barred from imposing retrospective recruitment conditions that were not applied to similarly placed employees. The appeal of the workmen was allowed, and the Nagar Nigam’s appeal was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SUBRAT ASHISH KHARE
