Summary
The Supreme Court set aside directions prescribing regularisation and a detailed benefits scheme for casual Border Roads Organisation workers. The materially identical dispute was governed by Vartak Labour Union: long casual engagement alone did not create entitlement to regular appointment outside the applicable recruitment process. Framing a scheme belonged ordinarily to the Government; the High Court had not justified the exceptional mandatory intervention adopted. An existing government welfare scheme was also noted.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could prescribe the regularisation and welfare scheme in this dispute.
Held
- Vartak Labour Union concerned the same organisation and materially identical claims. Differences in union name and work location did not justify departing from its rule against regularisation merely on long casual service. (¶ 12–15)
- Scheme formulation ordinarily lay with the Government. The Court could direct consideration of an appropriate scheme; mandatory directions required an exceptional justification, which was absent here. (¶ 16–17)
- The Union had already framed a welfare scheme. The demand to implement the alternative scheme relied on by the workers had been considered and rejected in the governing precedent. (¶ 18–19)
Result
Union’s appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and workers’ writ petition dismissed.