2025 INSC 144 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 1 of 23

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024

SHRIPAL & ANR. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD …RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8158-8179 OF 2024

J U D G M E N T

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 2 of 23

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.

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.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 3 of 23

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,

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 4 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 5 of 23

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 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,

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 6 of 23

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 long-

standing, 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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 7 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 8 of 23

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. Umadevi

1 , 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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 9 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 10 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 11 of 23

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 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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 12 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 13 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 14 of 23

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 Work men’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, receivin g

instructions on their duties, and drawing wages

issued under the Municipality’s authority. This

pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 15 of 23

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 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 employer-

employee 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 long-

serving 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.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 16 of 23

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,

2

(2006) 4 SCC 1.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 17 of 23

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 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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 18 of 23

“temporary” employment practices as done by a

recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of

India

3

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 i n

precarious employment 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.

………

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

3

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 19 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 20 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 21 of 23

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.

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 22 of 23

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2024 ETC. Page 23 of 23

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.

…………………………………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

…………………………………………J.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE )

NEW DELHI

JANUARY 31, 2025