The Supreme Court criticized the misuse of temporary employment contracts in public sector entities, likening it to gig economy exploitation. Emphasizing fairness and job security, the Court deemed the abrupt termination of long-serving Central Water Commission employees arbitrary and discriminatory. It directed their reinstatement, reinforcing the need for equitable employment practices in government institutions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment [Jaggo v. Union of India and Others], criticized the rampant misuse of temporary employment contracts in public sector entities, equating the practice to the exploitative trends of the gig economy. A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale emphasized the critical need for government institutions to uphold fairness, justice, and workers’ rights while ensuring 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,”
the Court stated. It added,
“When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy and erodes public trust.”
The Court noted that temporary contracts, initially designed for short-term needs, have evolved into mechanisms to avoid long-term obligations. It urged government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment.
“Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods contravenes international labour standards, undermines morale, and exposes organizations to legal challenges. Fair employment practices uphold the principles of justice and reduce unnecessary litigation,”
the Bench observed.
The case involved appellants employed by the Central Water Commission (CWC) in roles integral to its functioning. Despite years of service exceeding two decades in some cases, they were abruptly terminated in 2018 without notice.
The Supreme Court deemed the termination arbitrary and discriminatory, emphasizing that
“the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service cannot be brushed aside by labelling their appointments as contractual.”
Highlighting discriminatory practices within the CWC, the Court noted that others with fewer years of service had been regularized.
“Such disparity violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,”
the Court declared, directing the appellants’ reinstatement and regularization.
This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to addressing exploitative employment practices and ensuring fairness, particularly in government institutions tasked with upholding justice and equity.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
