Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement of Municipal Workers in Ghaziabad

The case of Shripal & Others vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad revolves around the termination of municipal horticulture workers and their battle for reinstatement and regularization. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the High Court was justified in only granting partial relief by directing daily-wage re-engagement instead of full reinstatement with back wages.

The ruling strengthens protections for long-serving temporary workers and reinforces labor rights by holding that the termination of workers without due process is illegal.

Background of the Case

The dispute stems from the abrupt termination of gardeners (Malis) employed in the Horticulture Department of Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam. The appellants had served for years maintaining public parks, planting trees, and beautifying city spaces under the direct supervision of municipal officials. However, they were denied appointment letters, minimum wages, and other statutory benefits.

Chronology of Events

1998-1999: Appellants engaged as gardeners in Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam.
2004: Workmen raised an industrial dispute seeking regularization.
2005: Nagar Nigam terminated their services orally without notice.
2011: Labour Court ruled in favor of some workmen, ordering reinstatement with 30% back wages.
2011: A different set of adjudication cases denied relief to others, citing indirect employment via contractors.
2019: High Court partially upheld reinstatement but limited it to daily-wage employment.
2025: Supreme Court overruled the High Court and ordered full reinstatement.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The appellants, represented by their counsel, contended that:

They were directly employed by the Nagar Nigam, as evidenced by wage records.
Their termination violated Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prohibit service alterations during pending industrial disputes.
The High Court’s ruling, granting daily-wage re-engagement instead of reinstatement, left them in a precarious employment state.
They were entitled to full reinstatement with back wages and regularization as per the principle of “equal pay for equal work.”

Respondents’ Arguments

The Nagar Nigam, represented by its counsel, countered that:

There was a ban on fresh municipal recruitment in Uttar Pradesh, preventing direct absorption.
The workers were engaged through independent contractors, and the municipality was not the direct employer.
Regularization was not possible under the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, which restricted permanent absorption of temporary employees.
The High Court’s order allowing daily-wage re-engagement was already a sufficient concession.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Key Observations

“The Nagar Nigam failed to produce any documentary proof of contractor engagement, undermining its claim that the workmen were not directly employed.”
“The ban on fresh recruitment cannot be used to deny legal protections to long-serving workmen.”
“Equal pay for equal work is a recognized labor principle, and municipalities cannot circumvent labor laws by keeping workers on perpetual temporary status.”

Violation of Labor Laws

The Court found that:

The termination was illegal since it occurred during pending conciliation proceedings.
The Nagar Nigam violated Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by not providing notice or retrenchment compensation.
Workers performed permanent municipal duties, making their classification as “temporary” unjustified.

Impact on Municipal Services

The Court noted that Ghaziabad faced a shortage of Gardeners and that Nagar Nigam continued to require horticulture staff. It found it illogical that these workers were terminated while their work remained essential.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants and held that:

The High Court’s ruling of daily-wage re-engagement was set aside.
The workmen were entitled to full reinstatement with continuity of service.
The Nagar Nigam was directed to pay 50% of back wages from the date of termination.
The municipal corporation must initiate a regularization process within six months.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for labor rights:

Prevents arbitrary termination of municipal workers.
Reinforces legal protections under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ensures fair compensation for long-serving temporary employees.
Encourages municipalities to follow due process in employment matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that municipal workers are not exploited under the guise of temporary employment. By ordering full reinstatement and future regularization, the ruling upholds labor rights and sets a precedent for fair treatment of long-term workers in public sector organizations.

Petitioner Name: Shripal & Others.
Respondent Name: Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad.
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
Place Of Incident: Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 31-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: shripal-&-others-vs-nagar-nigam,-ghaziab-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-31-01-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category