Contractual Employees - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

28Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

This Supreme Court judgment addresses contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a prior Supreme Court order modifying an industrial tribunal award. The Court appoints an auditor to resolve wage calculation discrepancies, assess excess payment recoveries, and determine statutory gratuity interest. It refrains from intervening in a separate High Court matter concerning provident fund dues, affirming the High Court's competence on that issue. Facts Of The Case: The contempt petition arose from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 7, 2017. That judgment had modified an Industrial Tribunal award, which originally directed the BMC to grant permanent status and retrospective benefits to approximately 2,700 sanitation workers ...

Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle of "equal pay for equal work" for contractually appointed Assistant Professors performing identical duties as their regular and ad-hoc counterparts. It directed the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post, holding that the nature of the appointment (contractual) does not negate the entitlement to pay parity when the work is the same. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the State of Gujarat where a significant number of sanctioned posts for Assistant Professors in Government Engineering and Polytechnic colleges remained vacant for years. To address this shortage, the state government made appointments on both ad hoc and contractual bases. The respondents were Assistant Professors appointed on a contractua...

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...