Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
Citation: 2025 INSC 144; Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 with connected appeals
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Background
The case arose from the termination of long-serving gardeners (Malis) employed by the Horticulture Department of Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation). The appellant workmen, engaged since 1998–99, claimed to have performed perennial municipal duties—such as planting, maintaining parks, and beautifying public spaces—under direct supervision of the employer, without formal appointment letters, minimum wages, or statutory benefits. In July 2005, their services were terminated orally, allegedly during pending conciliation proceedings, without notice or retrenchment compensation.
Legal Issues
Whether the termination of the workmen during conciliation proceedings violated Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the workmen, having performed perennial duties akin to permanent posts, were entitled to regularization and statutory benefits.
Whether the High Court erred in restricting relief to daily-wage re-engagement instead of full reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Illegality of Termination:
The Supreme Court held that the termination was illegal, as it occurred during conciliation proceedings, violating Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and without compliance with Section 6N (retrenchment compensation and notice).
Right to Reinstatement and Back Wages:
The Court restored the Labour Court’s award, directing reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service and 50% back wages for the period of illegal termination. The Court found that the High Court erred in limiting relief to daily-wage re-engagement, disregarding the workers’ long service and the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.
Regularization of Service:
Recognizing that the workmen had performed perennial duties akin to those of permanent employees, the Court directed the employer to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularization within six months from the date of reinstatement, considering their long and continuous service.
Ban on Recruitment:
The Court clarified that any ban on recruitment cannot override statutory labor rights and constitutional protections, especially where workers have been engaged directly and continuously by the municipal employer.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the workmen, dismissed the employer’s appeals, and ordered:
Reinstatement with continuity of service
50% back wages for the period of illegal termination
Initiation of regularization process within six months from reinstatement
The Court reinforced that termination in violation of labor laws and constitutional principles cannot be sustained.
Significance
This judgment is a landmark affirmation of lab
RELATED Blog
0 comments