Supreme Court Upholds Regularization of Daily Wagers: Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela (26 July 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 26 July 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 470

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a university deny regularization to daily wagers who have worked for many years, especially when a scheme for regularization was already in place? The Supreme Court addressed this critical issue in a case involving the Anand Agriculture University and its daily-wage employees. The court reaffirmed the rights of daily wagers to be regularized according to an existing scheme, emphasizing that previous judgments of the court are binding. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Anand Agriculture University, like many other institutions, engaged daily wagers across its various agricultural research centers. These workers performed a range of tasks, from plumbing and carpentry to sweeping and field labor. In 1993, these daily wagers raised an industrial dispute, demanding regularization of their services. The Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot ruled in their favor, directing the university to regularize those who had completed 10 years of service as of January 1, 1993. The university challenged this decision, leading to a series of appeals and a final resolution by the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot initially directed the university to regularize daily wagers with 10 years of service as of January 1, 1993. The university challenged this decision in the High Court, which partly allowed the university’s plea, setting aside the regularization order but directing the university to pay minimum wages and formulate a regularization scheme. The university’s appeal against this order was dismissed. Subsequently, a regularization scheme was framed, specifying that daily wagers with 10 years of service as of December 31, 1999, would be regularized. The Supreme Court, in an earlier case, approved this scheme with some modifications. Despite this, many daily wagers were not regularized, leading them to file writ petitions in the High Court, which were allowed, directing regularization. The university’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, affirming the single judge’s decision to regularize the services of respondents/daily wagers.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation and implementation of a regularization scheme for daily wagers. The scheme, as framed by the Gujarat Agricultural University, aimed to regularize daily wagers who had completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as of December 31, 1999. This scheme was approved by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., subject to certain modifications. The court emphasized that the scheme should be implemented in a phased manner, and additional posts should be created to absorb the maximum number of eligible workers. The court also stated that the daily wagers should not be disqualified for regularization on the ground that they did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria on the date when they were engaged initially as daily wagers. The Supreme Court had also considered the issue of financial constraints and held that it is not a ground to deprive the daily wagers of their right for regularization in accordance to the scheme.

Arguments

The university argued that after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors., the daily wagers were not entitled to regularization because there were no sanctioned posts available. The university also contended that the earlier judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University did not survive after the Umadevi judgment. The university submitted that 890 posts were created coterminous with the services of those daily wagers who have been absorbed in those posts and no further posts have been created and therefore, the remaining daily wagers cannot claim regularization of their services.

The daily wagers argued that they were eligible for regularization under the scheme approved by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Agricultural University. They contended that the scheme was still in effect and that they were entitled to be absorbed. They also highlighted the discriminatory approach of the university in regularizing some daily wagers while denying the same benefit to others. The daily wagers relied on the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Agricultural University, which had approved the scheme and directed for regularization of eligible daily wagers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the daily wagers/respondents are entitled to regularization of their services.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 574]: The Court relied on this judgment, which had approved the regularization scheme and directed the university to implement it phase-wise. The Court emphasized that this judgment was binding on the university.

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1]: The Court distinguished this judgment, stating that it did not overrule the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University. The Court clarified that the principles in Umadevi apply to cases of irregular appointments but do not negate the binding nature of the earlier judgment in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the binding nature of its earlier judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. The Court emphasized that the university was obligated to implement the regularization scheme approved in that case. The Court also noted the discriminatory approach of the university in regularizing some daily wagers while denying the same benefit to others. The Court held that the judgment in Umadevi did not overrule the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University, as the latter was a judgment inter partes and was binding on the university. The Court also rejected the university’s argument that financial constraints or lack of sanctioned posts could justify denying regularization to eligible daily wagers. The Court also observed that the right of the respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles of precedent and the binding nature of its own judgments. While the factual context of the case (the long service of the daily wagers, the existence of a regularization scheme, and the university’s discriminatory practices) played a role, the court’s decision was driven by the legal obligation to adhere to its previous rulings.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that its earlier judgments are binding on the parties involved.
• Daily wagers who are eligible under a previously approved regularization scheme are entitled to be regularized, even if there are no sanctioned posts.
• Financial constraints or lack of sanctioned posts cannot be a ground to deny regularization to eligible daily wagers.
• The judgment in Umadevi does not negate the binding nature of earlier judgments that specifically address regularization schemes for daily wagers.
• Universities must implement regularization schemes in a phased manner until all eligible daily wagers are absorbed.
• A discriminatory approach in regularizing some daily wagers while denying the same benefit to others is not permissible.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision to regularize the daily wagers. The Court made it clear that the regularization of the services of respondents shall not be disturbed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a judgment of the Supreme Court, especially one that has approved a specific scheme, is binding on the parties involved. The Court also clarified that the principles laid down in Umadevi do not negate the binding nature of earlier judgments that specifically address regularization schemes for daily wagers. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to legal precedents and ensuring that the rights of daily wagers are protected.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela and Anr. is a significant reaffirmation of the rights of daily wagers to be regularized according to existing schemes. The Court emphasized the binding nature of its previous judgments and rejected the university’s arguments that financial constraints or the lack of sanctioned posts could justify denying regularization. This decision ensures that the rights of daily wagers are protected and that institutions are held accountable for implementing regularization schemes.