Supreme Court Rules Contractual Workers Cannot Claim Equal Status as Regular Employees

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that workers hired through contractors are not entitled to the same employment benefits as regular employees, as per The Live Law report.  

This decision emphasises the importance of maintaining distinct hiring processes and the integrity of public recruitment. 

Supreme Court's Decision on Contractual Workers 

The Supreme Court has clarified that contractual workers engaged through third-party service providers do not qualify for equivalent employment benefits as regular employees.  

The Court highlighted that granting such parity would undermine public recruitment principles and transparent hiring processes.  

Regular employment under a State entity is considered a public asset, distinct from contractual engagements through contractors. 

Case Background and Legal Arguments 

The case involved workers, including sanitation staff, employed by the Nandyal Municipal Council in Andhra Pradesh via manpower contractors since 1994. Despite changes in contractors, the same group of workers continued their duties for nearly 30 years.  

These workers sought regularisation and pay parity, arguing they performed identical work as regular municipal employees but received lower wages. 

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal initially rejected their claim, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in their favour in 2018. The municipality appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing no direct employer-employee relationship existed with these workers. 

Supreme Court's Rationale 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, agreeing with the municipality's argument. The Court noted that since the workers were engaged through an intermediary contractor, the Municipal Council was not liable to extend the same employment benefits.  

The Court emphasised the fundamental difference in legal relationships between regular employees and those hired through contractors. 

Read More: Supreme Court Asks Centre to Review EPF Wage Ceiling: What Does it Means for Employees?! 

Consideration for Regularisation 

While allowing the appeal, the Court directed the municipality to explore the possibility of regularising these workers, considering their long-standing service. However, the Court clarified that this direction was specific to the case's unique circumstances and should not be treated as a precedent. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the legal distinction between regular and contractual employees, highlighting the importance of transparent hiring processes. While the Court acknowledged the workers' long service, it maintained that employment benefits should align with the nature of their contractual engagement. 

Disclaimer: This blog has been written exclusively for educational purposes. The securities or companies mentioned are only examples and not recommendations. This does not constitute a personal recommendation or investment advice. It does not aim to influence any individual or entity to make investment decisions. Recipients should conduct their own research and assessments to form an independent opinion about investment decisions. 

Investments in the securities market are subject to market risks, read all the related documents carefully before investing.