Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court judgment and directs regularisation of daily-wage gang labourers engaged at ISRO’s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre
Supreme Court Criticises Union
The Supreme Court has criticised the Union Government for failing to regularise daily-wage workers engaged in an ISRO subsidiary.
Earlier judicial directions had required the Union to frame a scheme or issue ad hoc rules within six months.
Those directions also required creation of necessary posts for the permanent absorption of the workers.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Madras High Court judgment.
The Court also quashed relevant portions of the Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012.
It held that the 2012 scheme provided only temporary engagement.
Therefore, the scheme did not comply with the earlier direction for permanent status.
Judicial Directions Cannot Be Diluted
The Court said that authorities cannot dilute judicial directions after they attain finality.
It observed that a later scheme must comply with the substance of the directions.
Otherwise, the scheme cannot stand.
The Bench also held that the State must act as a model employer.
According to the Court, this duty flows directly from Article 14 of the Constitution.
Further, the Court expressed serious disapproval of the Union’s conduct.
It noted that the workers had to pursue prolonged litigation to secure what was due to them.
Court On Fairness And Dignity
The Court said the State cannot act with arbitrariness or indifference.
This is especially true when workers have contributed to national endeavours.
The Bench observed that the State benefited from their labour for years.
However, it denied them recognised service status.
The Court said such conduct strikes at fairness and dignity in public employment.
Workers’ Role In Space Programme Noted
The Court also recognised the role of labourers who supported India’s space programme.
It said their contribution must not be overlooked.
The Court noted that rocket and satellite missions do not succeed through scientific design alone.
They also depend on a support chain.
This includes transportation of materials, maintenance of facilities and other ancillary tasks.
Therefore, the Court said that service recognition cannot ignore such workers.
It added that discrimination against them would weaken the collective ethos that helped India reach “the Moon and beyond.”
Background Of The Case
The appellants were daily-wage gang labourers.
They worked at ISRO’s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, Mahendragiri.
The authorities engaged them between 1991 and 1997.
They performed duties such as loading, unloading and shifting materials.
Many of them had worked for more than two decades.
In 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Union to act.
It asked the Union to frame a scheme or ad hoc rules.
It also directed the Union to create posts for the workers’ permanent absorption.
The Madras High Court upheld this direction in 2011.
Later, the Supreme Court affirmed it.
As a result, the issue attained finality.
2012 Scheme Challenged
Instead of creating permanent posts, the Union introduced the 2012 scheme.
The scheme was called the Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012.
However, it only provided temporary engagement.
It did not regularise the workers.
The appellants challenged the scheme before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
However, the challenge failed.
They then approached the Madras High Court.
The High Court also dismissed their writ petition.
Therefore, the workers filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
High Court Erred In Reopening Merits
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Justice Vikram Nath authored the judgment.
The Court held that the High Court wrongly reopened the merits of the dispute.
It also said the High Court erred in relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
According to the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have used that judgment to deny regularisation.
Instead, the High Court should have examined only one issue.
It had to see whether the authorities had complied with the Tribunal’s earlier directions.
This included directions relating to the 2012 scheme.
Article 14 Requires Fair State Action
The Court reiterated that the State’s duty as a model employer is not a mere moral appeal.
It is a constitutional obligation.
The Court held that Article 14 requires fairness in State action.
It also requires non-discrimination and reasoned decision-making.
Further, Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness.
Therefore, the State cannot avoid compliance with binding judicial directions.
Regularisation Directed
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision.
It also set aside the 2012 scheme to the extent that it conflicted with the Tribunal’s directions.
The Court directed regularisation of the appellants’ services.
It also directed the grant of permanent status to them.
The regularisation will take effect from September 9, 2010.
This was the outer limit fixed by the Tribunal for framing the scheme.
The Court directed the authorities to implement the order within four weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: R. Iyyappan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 441
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Appearances
For the Petitioners: Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Advocate; Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR; Mr. P. Rohit Ram, Advocate; Mr. Sanyam Jain, Advocate; Ms. Mishra Divya Santosh, Advocate; Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR.
