DELHI ,DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES' UNION . versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI AND ORS.

DELHI ,DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES' UNION . versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI AND ORS.

There is no scope for regularisation of the petitioners as daily wage workers because the schemes under which they were engaged were temporary, had no sanctioned posts, and were meant to provide intermittent employment to rural poor. The right to regularisation cannot arise as it would frustrate the scheme's purpose and is not supported by the existence of regular posts or a permanent requirement. The right to livelihood is not a fundamental right enforceable in this context, but petitioners may be considered for preference in employment if registered with the Employment Exchange and otherwise qualified.

Parties
Petitioner: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union; Respondent: Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 February 1992
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Work, Right to Livelihood, Regularisation of Daily Wage Workers, Employment Under Government Schemes, Employment Exchanges
Constitutional Law Labour Law Right to Work Right to Livelihood Regularisation of Daily Wage Workers Employment Under Government Schemes Employment Exchanges

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union

Petitioner

Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether daily wage workers employed under government schemes like Jawahar Rozgar Yojna have a right to be absorbed as regular employees
  2. 2 Whether right to work and livelihood is included in the right to life as a fundamental right under the Constitution
  3. 3 Factors for regularisation of daily wage workers

Ratio Decidendi

There is no scope for regularisation of the petitioners as daily wage workers because the schemes under which they were engaged were temporary, had no sanctioned posts, and were meant to provide intermittent employment to rural poor. The right to regularisation cannot arise as it would frustrate the scheme's purpose and is not supported by the existence of regular posts or a permanent requirement. The right to livelihood is not a fundamental right enforceable in this context, but petitioners may be considered for preference in employment if registered with the Employment Exchange and otherwise qualified.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Delhi Administration to keep petitioners on a panel; if registered with Employment Exchange and qualified, they shall be given preference in employment whenever a vacancy in the regular posts occurs.