Shripal Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 INSC 144 -Labour Law - Uma Devi Judgment - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act

Labour Law - SC judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment- 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 - 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 - Quoted from in Jaggo v. Union of India. (Para 15)

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act - Section 6E, 6N - 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.

Labour Law - Rights of employees - 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 (Para 17)- Equal pay for equal work- The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” 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. (Para 13)