SHRIPAL & ANR.versusNAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD

                 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1427 : 2025 INSC 144

                             Shripal & Anr.
                                   v.
                         Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
                       (Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024)
                                31 January 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the services of the appellant-workmen (gardeners) were
       terminated without complying with Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P.
       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellants, if entitled to reinstatement
       with back wages as also regularization of their services.

                                   Headnotes†
       U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss.6E, 6N – Non-compliance
       with:
       Held: The pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement
       negates the stand of the Respondent-Employer that the Appellant-
       Workmen were “contractor’s personnel” – Appellants were pressing
       for regularization and proper wages through pending conciliation
       proceedings, however, the Employer proceeded to discontinue
       their services, without issuing prior notice or granting retrenchment
       compensation – Discontinuation of the Appellants’ services, effected
       without compliance with ss.6E and 6N was illegal – Appellants were
       performing the same tasks of planting, pruning, general upkeep as
       regular Gardeners – The principle of “equal pay for equal work”
       cannot be casually disregarded when workers continuously 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 – Employer’s plea of lack of an employer-
       employee relationship is not supported by evidence – Furthermore,
       reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used
       to deny labor protections to long serving workmen – Uma Devi
       cannot be used to justify exploitative engagements persisting for
       years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment –
       Impugned order of the High Court, to the extent it confines the

* Author
1428                                                          [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    Appellants to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or
    meaningful back wages, is set aside – Orders/communications
    terminating services, quashed – Respondent shall reinstate and
    regularize the Appellants – Appellants to be treated as continuing
    in service from the date of their termination, entitled to 50% of the
    back wages in the terms directed. [Paras 10, 13, 11,18]

    Labour Laws – Labour jurisprudence – Failure of Employer
    to produce muster rolls – Adverse inference can be drawn
    against the Employer:
    Held: Failure of the Employer to furnish muster rolls in full despite
    directions, leads to an adverse inference – 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. [Para 15]

                             Case Law Cited
    Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006] 3 SCR 953 :
    (2006) 4 SCC 1 – held inapplicable.
    Jaggo v. Union of India [2024] 12 SCR 1235 : 2024 SCC OnLine
    SC 3826 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
    U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

                             List of Keywords
    Sections 6E, 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Gardeners;
    Permanent employees; Horticulture Department; Ghaziabad Nagar
    Nigam; Municipality; Termination; Reinstatement; Back wages;
    Regularization of service; Direct oversight; Wage disbursement;
    Employer-employee relationship; Employer’s direct supervision;
    Casual engagements/employees; Municipal functions; Pending
    conciliation proceedings; Discontinuation of services; “equal pay
    for equal work”; Contractor; Third-party contractor; Daily-wage
    engagement; Daily-wage; Contractual engagements; Muster rolls;
    Contractual Hiring; Public Employment; Prior notice; Retrenchment
    compensation; Municipal duties; Permanent posts; Labour laws;
    Labour jurisprudence; “ban on fresh recruitment”.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                         1429

                Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad


                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2019 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in WC No. 13381 of 2012
     With
     Civil appeal No(s). 8158-8179 Of 2024

                        Appearances for Parties
     Ms. Amiy Shukla, Shakti Vardhan, Shantanu Kumar, Malak
     Manish Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Ms. Sukanya Joshi, Advs. for
     the Appellants.
     Shakti Vardhan, Ms. Amiy Shukla, Shantanu Kumar, Malak Manish
     Bhatt, Ms. Amiy Shukla, Shakti Vardhan, Ms. Dipa Rakesh Kumar,
     Devanshu Yadav, Kartik Yadav, Gautam Awasthi, Ms. Anzu. K.
     Varkey, Girijesh Pandey, Dr. M P Singh, Ms. Alpana Pandey, Ajay
     Kumar Tiwari, Avanish Pandey, Sriram P, Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Vikram Nath, J.

1.   These appeals, one filed by certain workmen (hereinafter, the
     workmen in all the appeals are referred to as the Appellant Workmen)
     and the other by the employer department i.e., Ghaziabad Nagar
     Nigam (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Employer as the
     employer in all the appeals), arise out of a common final judgment and
     order dated 01.03.2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
     Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 13381 of 2012 and connected matters.
2.   By the impugned judgment, the High Court considered the legality
     of two conflicting sets of awards passed by the Labour Court,
     Ghaziabad—one set allowing reinstatement of some workmen with
     partial back wages, and another set denying relief altogether to other
     similarly placed workmen.
3.   The factual matrix leading up to the appeal before us is as follows:
     3.1 The Appellant Workmen claim to have been engaged as
         Gardeners (Malis) in the Horticulture Department of the
1430                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


         Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, since the year
         1998 (in some instances, since 1999). According to them, they
         continuously discharged horticultural and maintenance duties—
         such as planting trees, maintaining parks, and beautifying
         public spaces—under the direct supervision of the Respondent
         Employer. They further allege that no formal appointment letters
         were ever issued to them, and that they were persistently
         denied minimum wages, weekly offs, national holidays, and
         other statutory benefits.
    3.2 In 2004, the Appellant Workmen, along with many other similarly
        situated employees, raised an industrial dispute (C.B. Case
        No. 6 of 2004) before the Conciliation Officer at Ghaziabad,
        seeking regularization of their services and the requisite statutory
        benefits. They contend that, upon learning of this demand,
        the Respondent Employer began delaying their salaries and
        subjected them to adverse working conditions. Eventually,
        around mid-July 2005, the services of numerous workmen were
        allegedly terminated orally, without any notice, written orders,
        or retrenchment compensation.
    3.3 Since the above termination took place during the pendency
        of the conciliation proceedings, the Appellant Workmen argue
        it violated Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
        Consequently, the State Government referred the disputes
        concerning both (i) regularization and (ii) legality of the alleged
        termination, to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad for adjudication.
    3.4 The Labour Court proceeded to decide the references vide
        two orders:
         (i)    Order dated 03.06.2011: In numerous adjudication cases
                (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos. 448, 451, 467 of 2006, etc.),
                the Labour Court passed awards holding the terminations
                illegal for want of compliance with Section 6N of the U.P.
                Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement
                with 30% back wages.
         (ii)   Order dated 11.10.2011: However, in about 41 other
                adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos. 269,
                270, 272, etc.), the Labour Court arrived at a contrary
                conclusion, dismissing the claims on the finding that the
                concerned workmen had not been engaged directly by the
                Nagar Nigam but rather through a contractor, and hence
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                       1431

                Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad


                had no enforceable right to reinstatement or regularization
                against the Respondent Employer.
     3.5 Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the awards (i.e., those
         granting reinstatement), the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad
         Nagar Nigam, filed several writ petitions before the High Court of
         Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Labour Court’s findings.
         On the other hand, the workmen whose claims were dismissed
         by the other set of awards also approached the High Court by
         filing their own writ petitions. All these writ petitions were heard
         together, culminating in the common judgment dated 01.03.2019,
         which partly modified the Labour Court’s conclusions.
     3.6 Through the impugned judgment, the High Court held that while
         the Labour Court was correct in exercising jurisdiction under
         the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (since municipalities could be
         treated as “industry”), there remained factual complexities as to
         whether the workmen were genuinely on the rolls of the Nagar
         Nigam or were provided by contractors. The High Court also
         noted that the State Government had, by notifications/orders,
         placed a ban on fresh recruitments in Municipal Corporations,
         thereby restricting direct appointments to any post. Ultimately,
         the High Court partially modified the relief granted, directing re-
         engagement of the workmen on daily wages, with pay equivalent
         to the minimum in the regular pay scale of Gardeners, while
         allowing future consideration of their regularization if permissible
         by law.
4.   Both the Appellant Workmen and the Respondent Employer have
     now approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The
     workmen primarily seek full reinstatement with back wages and a
     direction to secure their regularization, whereas the Respondent
     Employer seeks to quash the modifications ordered by the High
     Court on the ground that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
     by granting partial relief akin to regular employees, contrary to
     constitutional provisions and the State’s ban on recruitment.
5.   Learned counsel for the Appellant Workmen made the following
     submissions:
     I.    Continuous Service & Comparable Duties: The Appellant
           Workmen had continuously discharged horticultural and
           maintenance duties—like planting trees, upkeep of public parks,
1432                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


             and general beautification—under the direct supervision and
             control of the Respondent Employer for periods often exceeding
             a decade. They insist such long-standing, continuous work
             parallels that of permanent Gardeners.
      II.    Direct Engagement & Wage Disbursement: They aver that
             their wages, though inadequate, were paid directly by the
             Horticulture Department of the Respondent Employer, nullifying
             the Employer’s claim of contractual hiring. Muster rolls and
             internal notes are cited to show direct employer-employee
             relations.
      III.   Illegal Termination: Alleging violation of Sections 6E and 6N of
             the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Appellant Workmen
             maintain their abrupt termination in July 2005 (during pendency
             of conciliation proceedings) was devoid of due process and
             statutory payments, rendering it patently illegal.
      IV.    Entitlement to Reinstatement & Regularization: Given their
             long service and the principle of “equal pay for equal work,”
             the Appellant Workmen submit they deserve full reinstatement
             with back wages and a legitimate pathway to regularization, as
             opposed to the partial relief of mere daily-wage re-engagement
             prescribed by the High Court.
6.    On the other, the learned counsel for the Respondent Employer,
      Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam made the following submissions:
      I.     Compliance with Constitutional Requirements: Emphasizing
             the constitutional scheme of public employment, it is urged
             that there was (and remains) a ban on fresh recruitment in
             Municipal Corporations, and no proper selection process was
             ever followed to appoint the Workmen on any sanctioned posts.
      II.    No Direct Employer-Employee Relationship: The Respondent
             Employer contends that all horticulture work was carried
             out through independent contractors appointed via tender
             processes. It claims any partial wage documentation cited by
             the Workmen fails to establish direct engagement.
      III.   Inapplicability of Regularization: Relying on Secretary,
             State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi1 , it is asserted that no daily


1    (2006) 4 SCC 1
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            1433

                Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad


           wager can claim permanent absorption without adherence to
           constitutional requirements and availability of duly sanctioned
           vacancies.
     IV.   Inadequate Proof of 240 Days’ Service: The Respondent
           Employer points out that the Workmen did not convincingly
           demonstrate they completed 240 days of continuous work in
           any calendar year, thus undermining the assertion that their
           cessation from service was illegal.
     V.    Challenge to Modified Relief: Finally, it argues that the
           High Court’s direction to pay minimum-scale wages and to
           consider the Workmen for future regularization oversteps legal
           boundaries, disregards the recruitment ban, and fosters an
           impermissible avenue of public employment. The Respondent
           Employer, therefore, seeks the quashing of the impugned
           judgment.
7.   Having heard the arguments and submissions of the learned
     counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court
     is of the considered opinion that the nature of engagement of the
     Appellant Workmen, the admitted shortage of Gardeners, and the
     circumstances under which their services were brought to an end,
     merit closer scrutiny.
8.   It is undisputed that, while the Appellant Workmen were pressing
     for regularization and proper wages through pending conciliation
     proceedings, the Respondent Employer proceeded to discontinue
     their services, without issuing prior notice or granting retrenchment
     compensation. At this juncture, it is to have a look at the requirements
     of Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has
     been reproduced hereunder:-
           “6E. [ Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged in
           certain circumstances during the pendency of proceedings.
           [Inserted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957.]
           (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding
           before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding
           before a Labour Court or Tribunal in respect of an industrial
           dispute, no employer shall, -
           (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter,
           to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute,
1434                                                    [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        the conditions of service applicable to them immediately
        before the commencement of such proceeding, or
        (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute,
        discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise
        any workman concerned in such dispute save with the
        express permission in writing of the authority before which
        the proceeding is pending.
        (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect
        of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance
        with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned
        in such dispute, -
        (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with
        the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that
        workman immediately before the commencement of such
        proceeding, or
        (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute,
        discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise :
        Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or
        dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month
        and an application has been made by the employer to
        the authority before which the proceeding is pending for
        approval of the action taken by the employer.
        (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
        (2) no employer shall during the pendency of any such
        proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any
        action against any protected workman concerned in such
        dispute, -
        (a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman,
        the conditions of service applicable to him immediately
        before the commencement of such proceeding, or
        (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or
        otherwise, such protected workman, such with the express
        permission in writing of the authority before which the
        proceeding is pending.
        Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a
        ‘protected workman’ in relation to an establishment, means
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                         1435

                Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad


           a workman who, being an officer of a registered trade union
           connected with the establishment, is recognized as such
           in accordance with rules made in this behalf.
           (4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to
           be recognized as protected workmen for the purposes
           of sub-section (3) shall not exceed one per cent of the
           total number of workmen employed therein subject to
           a minimum number of five protected workmen and a
           maximum number of one hundred protected workmen
           and for the aforesaid purpose, the State Government may
           make rules providing for the distribution of such protected
           workmen among various trade unions, if any, connected
           with the establishment and the manner in which they may
           be chosen and recognized as protected workmen.
           (5) Where an employer makes an application to a Board,
           Labour Court or Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section
           (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority
           concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and
           pass, as expeditiously as possible, such order in relation
           thereto as it deems fit.”
9.   On a plain reading of this section, we can deduce that any unilateral
     alteration in service conditions, including termination, is impermissible
     during the pendency of such proceedings unless prior approval is
     obtained from the appropriate authority. The record in the present
     case does not indicate that the Respondent Employer ever sought
     or was granted the requisite approval. Prima facie, therefore, this
     conduct reflects a deliberate attempt to circumvent the lawful claims
     of the workmen, particularly when their dispute over regularization
     and wages remained sub judice.
10. The Respondent Employer consistently labelled the Appellant
    Workmen as casual employees (or workers engaged through an
    unnamed contractor), yet there is no material proof of adherence to
    Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates
    a proper notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as retrenchment
    compensation. In this context, 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.
1436                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


11. Furthermore, the Employer’s stance that there was never a direct
    employer-employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated. If, in
    fact, the Appellant Workmen had been engaged solely through
    a contractor, the Employer would have necessarily maintained
    some form of contract documentation, license copies, or invoices
    substantiating the contractor’s role in hiring, paying, and supervising
    these workers. However, no such documents have been placed
    on record. Additionally, the Employer has failed to establish that
    wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own Horticulture
    Department, which strongly indicates direct control and supervision
    over the Workmen’s day-to-day tasks is a hallmark of an employer-
    employee relationship. Had there been a legitimate third-party
    contractor, one would expect to see details such as tender notices,
    contract agreements, attendance records maintained by the
    contractor, or testimony from the contractor’s representatives. The
    absence of these crucial elements undermines the Employer’s claim
    of outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears that the Workmen were
    reporting directly to the Horticulture Department officials, receiving
    instructions on their duties, and drawing wages issued under the
    Municipality’s authority. This pattern of direct oversight and wage
    disbursement substantially negates the narrative that they were
    “contractor’s personnel.” Consequently, the discontinuation of their
    services carried out without compliance with statutory obligations
    pertaining to notice, retrenchment compensation, or approval under
    Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on precarious
    ground. The very foundation of the Employer’s defense (i.e., lack of
    an employer-employee relationship) is not supported by any credible
    or contemporaneous evidence.
12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts,
    reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the
    Respondent Employer’s municipal functions specifically the upkeep
    of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such
    work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based.
    Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used
    to deny labor protections to long-serving workmen. On the contrary,
    the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar
    Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and
    ongoing, not intermittent.
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep)
    from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1437

                      Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad


     compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent
     Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The
     principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by
     this Court, 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.
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2
    to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim
    permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing
    such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, 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. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a
    shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without
    the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record
    which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent
    need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on
    fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage
    status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered
    their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a
    decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the
    Employer’s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to
    do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour
    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. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall
    the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices
    as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
    India3 in the following paragraphs:


2   (2006) 4 SCC 1.
3   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
1438                                                    [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
        contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
        systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights
        and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
        economy has led to an increase in precarious employment
        arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits,
        job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have
        been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
        labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted
        with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear
        an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
        employment practices. When public sector entities engage
        in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
        detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
        sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust
        in governmental operations.
        ………
        25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
        particularly in government institutions, often face
        multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational
        purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
        short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly
        become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed
        to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
        •    Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged
             for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to
             the functioning of an institution are often labelled
             as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their
             roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
             misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
             security, and benefits that regular employees are
             entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
        •    Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
             frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as
             seen in the present case. This practice undermines
             the principles of natural justice and subjects workers
             to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the
             quality or duration of their service.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          1439

                Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad


           •    Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees
                often find themselves excluded from opportunities
                for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay
                raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating
                a systemic disparity between them and their regular
                counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
                significant.
           •    Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
                increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
                by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set
                of exploited workers with another. This practice not
                only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates
                a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
                regular employment.
           •    Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
                employees are often denied fundamental benefits
                such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and
                paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades.
                This lack of social security subjects them and their
                families to undue hardship, especially in cases of
                illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify
    these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement
    on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay.
    Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant
    Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status.
    While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and
    hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of
    service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree
    of statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the
    Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law
    principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated
    without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
    Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties,
    these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While
    concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules
    merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer
1440                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


    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.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine
    the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without
    continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the
    following directions:
    I.     The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services,
           effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N
           of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal.
           All orders or communications terminating their services are
           quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be
           treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination,
           for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
    II.    The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant
           Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties
           they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of
           this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date
           of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for
           continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as
           seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
    III.   Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall
           be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their
           discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent
           Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months
           from the date of their reinstatement.
    IV.    The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and
           transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen
           within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering
           the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties
           akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the
           Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria
           retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the
           Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees
           in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                       1441

                  Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad


             duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall
             expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these
             longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages
             contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed,
    whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are
    dismissed.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. No orders as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey