INTRODUCTION
The regularization of daily wage workers is an outstanding and ongoing concern. Many workers who have served for long tenure are denied regularization & similar benefits as regular employees, leading to injustice for a large segment of the workforce whose families rely solely on these jobs. Daily wage workers, a crucial part of the workforce, often face exploitation and instability due to a lack of job security, benefits, and social protection. Despite their long-term service, they remain employed in insecure positions with no guarantee of continued employment.
The Hon’ble Apex Court passed a settled landmark opinion in 2006 – State of Karnataka v Uma Devi.[1] “A significant question had arisen: Should the qualifications of temporary employees be considered for regularization, or is long-term service sufficient, even if the employee had not gone through the formal recruitment process? The answer to this question is recently determined in 2025.”[2] This blog will delve into the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Court and its intersection with the passed settled case law and major issues of denied regularization to long-term service-rendering employees.
FROM PAST PRECEDENTS TO PRESENT PRACTICES: TRACING THE EVOLUTION OF DAILY WAGE WORKERS’ REGULARIZATION
Before India’s Independence in 1947, there were no specific laws regarding the regularization of the daily wage employees. There was no legal protection for the employees, and they were exploited even after rendering long-term service temporarily, with no guarantee of regularization. However, post-independence after the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950, daily wage workers were granted fundamental rights[3] (Articles 14, 19, and 21), according to which they were provided with the right to equal wages, non-discrimination, and social security. Afterwards, certainlabourr laws (Industrial Dispute Act 1947, Minimum Wages Act 1948, The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, etc.) were also made. State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi[4] was a leading case of 2006 in history that dealt with the regularization of temporary employees in the public services and in which it was held that the state should follow due procedure while recruiting the employee as per the Indian constitution[5] & not based on long term services rendered. During 2014-2020, several public interest litigations were represented before the court regarding the issue. They started serving as a massive section of society whether it is in sanitation, construction, education, etc. However, an impactful judgment was passed by the Hon’ble apex court in 2014, in which the protection of public servant rights was dealt with[6]. At present (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed a judgment overruling the landmark judgment of 2006, concluding that the ‘Uma devi’ case judgment can’t be used for exploitive engagements[7]. (Mittal, 2025)
Constitutional procedure for recruitment of employees vs. worker’s right to regularization
(State of Karnataka versus Uma devi & Others- Landmark judgment- 2006)- To understand the relevance of constitutional procedure for recruitment of employees
Our Indian Constitution provides living wages, enjoyment of leisure, and social and cultural opportunities to the workers which is being violated if the long services rendering wagers are denied regularization. In the landmark case of Uma Devi[8], the respondents employed on a daily wage basis in the Commercial Taxes Department in Mysore, Karnataka, sought regularization as permanent employees after serving for 10 years. However, they were not recruited according to legal procedures. The Hon’ble High Court, citing the judgment of Uma Devi & others, ruled that they were entitled to wages equal to regular employees, effective from their respective appointment dates. The Court also directed the state to consider their regularization within four months of receiving the order. Feeling aggrieved by the Hon’ble High Court, respondents (state of Karnataka) approached Apex court which opined that regularization of employees who had not followed the due process of law is against the procedure established by the Indian constitution in article 309[9]. Also, rules are made for the state for the recruitment process of public services in Article 309 of The Indian Constitution. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that if the due procedure is established then the state is duly bound to follow the procedure of the recruitment of the employees in the public services. In conclusion, the Hon’ble Apex court held that the high court was wrong in claiming that these employees are equally eligible for payment equal to the regular employees. [10]It was a big question that arose as to whether these employees were entitled to be regularized based on long-term services. However, the Supreme Court held that no relief may be given to the respondents in their appeals and henceforth, they were dismissed. This judgment became a landmark judgment establishing a huge impact in society regarding the regularization of temporary employees even if they have rendered a long tenure service- an example that exploited daily wage labour for a long period (18 years).
Shripal & Anr.Versuss Nagar Nigam- (2025)- a recent landmark judgment
The appellants, Shripal and another, had been working as gardeners in the Horticulture department since 1998, performing tasks such as tree planting and park maintenance. Despite their long tenure, they were not provided minimum wages, weekly off, national holidays, or other statutory benefits. In 2004, they approached the labour court seeking regularization and statutory benefits, but their request was denied. Subsequently, they appealed to the High Court, which granted them wages equivalent to those of regular employees and the possibility of regularization, subject to legal provisions. The respondent authority contended that the High Court had overreached by ordering regularization, contravening constitutional norms. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court for reinstatement and regularization. A statement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that is truly appreciable is– “Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.”[11] (Nath, 2025). The court held the appellants-workmen were rendering services for a long period and denying them fair wages and benefits is wrong in the view of the court. Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the contention of respondents who were relying on the landmark judgment of ‘Uma devi’ and held that appellants must be employed permanently based on their long tenure of rendering services.
It is another question in law whether the workman is allowed to continue in the services, even if at the time of his recruitment, he was not meeting the eligibility criteria of the said employment. In the case of Bhagwati Prasad [12]it was held that “The aspect that workers not possessing initial educational qualification at the time of appointment gaining sufficient experience after many years of service, their confirmation cannot be refused only on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualification. It was a case of granting similar treatment or a pay scale based on the claim of ‘equal pay for equal work.” [13] Henceforth, such employees recruited shall be given the benefit of equal pay for equal work due to the long tenure of services rendered.
I strongly advocate that for the regularization of the employees who have rendered long-length services, they should be equal to permanent workers contemplating the experience they have accumulated over the long incumbency of their services, ‘Uma Devi’[14] should not be misused as a discriminatory, and unfair & bad practice of the government to make a contract of temporary services to exploit the gig economy should be denied. The claim made by employers that ‘a worker is employed temporarily and should not be regularized’ is not justified.
Consequently, the employer’s argument in Sripal’s [15]case, which relied on the Uma Devi [16]ruling was deemed unfair and was rejected.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision to reject the landmark judgment of Uma Devi in cases of exploitative employment is praiseworthy. By prioritizing justice and fairness, the Court has ensured that long-term daily wage workers receive the benefits they deserve, marking a significant victory for labour rights and equitable practices in India. Now, a critical question arises: “Should the justice system continue to allow this judgment of providing benefit to a temporary employee who has rendered a long-term service or is it also crucial to observe whether the employee was recruited based on strict procedure followed as per constitution?” This query challenges us to reconsider the balance between procedural recruitment and the fundamental rights of workers who dedicate years to their roles. However, in the recent judgment of 2025 court has ensured the protection of workers’ fundamental rights & decided to provide regularization to the long-tenure service-rendering employees.
Author(s) Name: Samarth Singh Baghel (Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur, M.p.)
References:
[1] State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SC)
[2] Shripal v Nagar Nigam (2025)
[3] Constitution of India 1950, arts, 14,19,21
[4] State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SC)
[5] Constitution of India 1950, arts 309
[6] State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v Arvind Kumar Srivastava [2014]
[7] Shripal v Nagar Nigam (2025)
[8] State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SC)
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 309
[10] State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SC), para 46
[11]Shripal v Nagar Nigam (2025)
[12] Bhagwati Prasad v Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361
[13] Bhagwati Prasad v Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361
[14] State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SC)
[15] Shripal v Nagar Nigam (2025)
[16] State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SC)
