Case Name: R. IYYAPPAN & ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Petition Number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7138 OF 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 431
Date of Judgement: 29.04.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
INTRODUCTION
The appeal was filed by daily-wage employees against a Madras High Court judgment rejecting their claim for regularisation at an Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) facility. The Supreme Court examined whether the State complied with an earlier, finalized judicial directive to create permanent posts, or whether it circumvented it by framing a scheme for merely temporary engagement. The Court also scrutinized the High Court’s jurisdiction to reopen the merits of a finalized regularisation order and highlighted the State’s constitutional obligation to act as a model employer toward the lowest rungs of its workforce.
FACTS
The appellants were engaged as daily-wage workers in the Mahendragiri Unit of the respondent Centre between 1991 and 1997. Following the introduction of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993, they sought regularisation of their services under the scheme. Due to inaction by the respondents, the appellants approached the Tribunal seeking regularisation along with consequential benefits. The Tribunal allowed their application and directed the respondents to formulate an appropriate scheme or rules to enable permanent engagement of such workers performing sporadic work. This decision attained finality after being unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents before higher courts.
In response, the respondent framed the Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme. The appellants contended that this scheme did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions and initiated contempt proceedings, which were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed their challenge, and although the matter was remanded once by the High Court for reconsideration, the Tribunal again rejected their claims, including their review petition. The appellants then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the scheme and directions for creation of posts, retrospective appointment, and regularisation. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether the “Gang Labourers Scheme” providing for temporary employment complied with the finalized 2010 Tribunal directive that mandated the creation of posts on a permanent basis?
- Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in the subsequent round of litigation by revisiting the underlying merits of regularisation, given that the earlier regularisation order had already attained finality?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellants argued that the 2012 Scheme blatantly violated the final 2010 Tribunal order, which strictly mandated permanent status and the creation of posts. They contended that continuing their daily-wage engagement for perennial work over decades without regularisation was exploitative, arbitrary, and violative of Article 23 of the Constitution.
The Respondents (Union of India/ISRO) argued that the workers were engaged only for sporadic, intermittent work such as loading, unloading and shifting of materials, on a need basis, and no formal employer-employee relationship existed. They asserted that the Scheme fully complied with the Tribunal’s order by ensuring the appellants’ engagement up to the age of 60 and giving them preferential consideration for future regular vacancies.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court found that the 2010 CAT order explicitly directed the respondents to frame an appropriate scheme or Ad Hoc Rules to regulate such employment in a structured, transparent, and non-arbitrary manner. Since Clause 4 of the 2012 Scheme only offered “temporary” employment without creating posts, it was fundamentally at variance with the finalized judicial directions.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court clearly transgressed its jurisdiction by reopening the merits of regularisation. Because the 2010 directive had already attained finality, the High Court’s scope of review was strictly confined to evaluating compliance with that specific order. It was wholly impermissible for the High Court to re-adjudicate the employees’ inherent right to absorption at this belated stage.
Furthermore, the Court strongly criticized the State for failing to act as a model employer under Article 14. In a poignant tribute to the Indian space program, the Court recalled how early rocket parts were transported on bicycles in Thumba, and the APPLE satellite was carried on a bullock cart. The Court emphasized that the monumental success of the space program relies not only on top-tier scientists but equally on the invisible, indispensable logistical support provided by Group-C and Group-D workers. Denying these workers a recognized service status while reaping the benefits of their decades of labor strikes at the very root of dignity and fairness in public employment.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concluded that the State cannot circumvent finalized judicial orders by framing non-compliant, temporary employment schemes. The Court held that the High Court erred in revisiting the merits of regularisation when the prior judicial mandate for permanent absorption had attained finality. Reaffirming the State’s duty as a model employer, the Court struck down the offending clauses of the “Gang Labourers Scheme” and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the appellants and all similarly situated persons, granting them permanent status retrospectively with effect from September 9, 2010.
