Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had directed the regularization of casual workers employed in the Border Roads Organization (BRO) and issued a detailed scheme of benefits. The respondents, including All India Trade Union Congress and GREF Mazdoor Kalyan Sangthan, had filed a writ petition seeking regularization of casual workers who had worked for several years on road construction projects for the Char Dham Yatra. The Single Judge allowed the petition, and the Division Bench affirmed with modifications, issuing ten specific directions including regularization, pay scales, labour law benefits, and facilities like housing and medical care. The Supreme Court found that the facts were identical to those in Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2), where it had held that casual workers cannot claim regularization merely due to long service, and that courts cannot frame schemes—that is the government's prerogative. The Court noted that the Union of India had already framed a welfare scheme for such workers. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Casual Workers - Courts cannot direct regularization merely on basis of long service - The Supreme Court held that casual employment terminates when discontinued and absorption cannot be ordered if appointment was not in terms of relevant rules - The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by framing a scheme itself - Government has sole prerogative to frame schemes (Paras 12-17). B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Scope of Mandamus - High Court can only direct government to consider framing a scheme, not frame it itself - In exceptional cases, mandatory directions may be issued but not to regularize services - The impugned directions were set aside as beyond the High Court's power (Paras 16-17). C) Precedent - Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2) - Identical facts - The Supreme Court followed its earlier decision where it set aside similar directions for regularization of BRO casual workers - The High Court ought to have applied this precedent instead of evolving its own scheme (Paras 12-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition and issuing directions in the nature of mandamus to frame a scheme for regularization and benefits to casual workers in BRO.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned order of High Court set aside; writ petition filed by respondents dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Regularization of casual workers cannot be granted merely on basis of long service
- casual employment terminates when discontinued
- courts cannot frame schemes for regularization
- government has prerogative to frame schemes
- High Court's power under Article 226 is limited to directing consideration of scheme.
