9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Absorption of daily wage workers as regular employees. 2. Injunction against termination of services. 3. Wage disparity between daily wage workers and regular employees. Summary: 1. Absorption of Daily Wage Workers as Regular Employees: The petitioners, who were employed on daily wages, sought absorption as regular employees in the Development Department of the Delhi Administration. The respondents contended that there was no provision for regularisation as the petitioners were employed under schemes that did not provide for such regularisation. The schemes, such as the "Food for Work" programme, National Rural Employment Programme, and Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, were designed to provide temporary employment to rural workers. The DRDA, an autonomous body registered as a Society, implemented these schemes but did not have regular posts. The responsibility for these schemes was later transferred to village panchayats, further eliminating any scope for regularisation. The court concluded that there was no basis for regularisation as the schemes were temporary and did not involve sanctioned posts. 2. Injunction Against Termination of Services: The petitioners also sought an injunction to prevent the termination of their services. The court noted that the employment under the schemes was inherently temporary and dependent on the availability of work and funds. The schemes were designed to provide intermittent employment to alleviate rural poverty and were not intended to offer permanent employment. Consequently, the court found no grounds to grant an injunction against the termination of services. 3. Wage Disparity Between Daily Wage Workers and Regular Employees: The petitioners argued for wage parity with regular employees. The court observed that the schemes under which the petitioners were employed were meant to provide temporary relief to those below the poverty line and were not designed to offer permanent employment or equal pay for equal work. The court emphasized that the limited resources of the state necessitated the temporary nature of the employment and that extending benefits akin to regular employment would undermine the purpose of the schemes. The court dismissed the petitioners' claim for wage parity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, stating that the petitioners could not be regularised due to the temporary nature of their employment under specific schemes. The court also denied the injunction against termination and the claim for wage parity, emphasizing the limited scope and resources of the employment schemes. The court recommended that the Delhi Administration keep the petitioners on a panel and give them preference in future employment opportunities if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and qualified for relevant posts.
|
