The Learned Counsel-Newsletter

What are the circumstances in which the contractual employees can claim regularization?

Case Details: Vinod Kumar & Ors v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 INSC 332

The appellants' were temporarily appointed to the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' in 1992, after a selection process involving written tests and viva voce interviews. The workers continued till present.

Following the dismissal of their application for regularization, by Divisional Railway Manager, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court of Allahabad, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India.

Earlier the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1], which held that temporary or casual employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service.

The two judge bench held that: Essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time.

The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment,constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement.

The appellants'promotion process was conducted and over seen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed. [ALL THESE FACTS DISTINGUISHES THIS CASE FROM UMADEVI CASE]

The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service.

Relevant Para from Umadevi

In that context, the Union of India,the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed [not illegally appointed], who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.

The Supreme Court found merit and directed the regularisation of the appellants within 3 months.

Can a Secured Creditor who fails to file a claim during CIRP, object to the Resolution Plan, basis the non consideration of their secured debt?

Case Details: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 297 of 2024 &Interlocutory Application No. No. 1000 of 2024

Court: NCLAT New Delhi

After the Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority.The applicant filed an I.A. seeking a declaration as Secured Creditors and raised objections to the Resolution Plan.The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on 22.12.2023, prompting the appellant (NOIDA Authority) to file an appeal to NCLAT.

However, the tribunal, acknowledging that NOIDA Authority did not file a claim duringCIRP.relied on Section 53 of the IBC, which creates a charge on the Corporate Debtor's assets for unpaid dues owed to specific entities like NOIDA Authority.The tribunal ruled that NOIDA Authority's status as a Secured Creditor arose from the lease agreement, not from filing a claim.

The NCLAT further held that the Resolution Professional has a duty to consider all debts reflected in the CD's records, regardless of whether a formal claim is filed.

The NCLAT relied on Anil Matta vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni as precedents.

The Tribunal declared NOIDA Authority a Secured Operational Creditor.The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider NOIDA Authority's claim and its objections to the RP.

Subscribe and Stay Updated