Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders Regularisation of Long-Term Daily Wagers, Calls Haryana’s Conduct ‘Unfair Labour Practice’

Continuity of Service and Effect of Labour Court Awards

The court relied heavily on earlier Labour Court awards, which had set aside Phoolwati’s termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages (later modified by the High Court). Justice Moudgil held that such awards create a legally enforceable right to be treated as in uninterrupted service from 1988 for all service-related benefits, including regularisation.

Unlawful termination, the court observed, was “nothing short of an unjust expropriation of the workman’s right to labour and livelihood,” and once such action is undone, the law must restore the equilibrium disturbed by the employer’s conduct.

State’s Defences Rejected

The High Court rejected multiple arguments advanced by the Haryana government:

• Seasonal work claim: The state’s attempt to retrospectively portray the work as seasonal was rejected as a challenge to judicial finality.
• Uma Devi bar: The court held that the petitioners’ case fell within the scope of valid regularisation policies and could not be defeated by a blanket reliance on the Supreme Court’s Uma Devi judgment.
• “Back-door entry” allegation: Invoking the Model Employer Doctrine, the court rejected the claim that the petitioners were back-door entrants, noting that decades of continuous service demonstrated a regular and ongoing need for work.

Vested Rights and Constitutional Equality

Interpreting the 1996 regularisation policy, the court noted that Group-D daily wagers who had completed three years of service as of January 31, 1996, with at least 240 days of work per year and no break exceeding one month, “shall be regularised.” The petitioners satisfied all these conditions.

Applying the doctrine of accrued or crystallised rights, the court held that once policy conditions are fulfilled while the policy is in force, the benefit becomes a vested entitlement that cannot be retrospectively withdrawn.

The denial of regularisation to the petitioners, when similarly placed and even junior employees were regularised, was held to violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, amounting to impermissible discrimination.

Accrued Rights Doctrine: When Policy Benefits Become Untouchable

A central pillar of the High Court’s reasoning is the doctrine of accrued or crystallised rights. The court held that once an employee fulfils all eligibility conditions prescribed under a regularisation policy while that policy is in force, the benefit ceases to be discretionary and becomes a vested entitlement. At that point, the right is no longer contingent on administrative grace.

In this case, the petitioners had satisfied every requirement under the 1996 regularisation policy—including length of service, continuity, and days worked—well before any later policy changes or administrative objections. The court made it clear that such vested rights cannot be retrospectively defeated by subsequent withdrawal of a policy, reinterpretation by the employer, or delayed decision-making by the State.

This clarification is significant because it draws a firm legal line between eligibility and implementation delay. The State’s failure to act in time cannot extinguish a right that has already accrued in law.

Model Employer Doctrine: The State’s Higher Constitutional Burden

Rejecting the Haryana government’s claim that the petitioners were “back-door entrants,” the court invoked the Model Employer Doctrine, which imposes a higher constitutional and ethical standard on the State as an employer. The court emphasised that when the government extracts labour for decades, records satisfactory service, and continues to require the work, it cannot later disown responsibility by pointing to procedural irregularities of its own making.

Justice Moudgil observed that the length of service itself demonstrated a permanent and ongoing need for the work, undermining the State’s attempt to characterise the engagement as temporary or seasonal. Describing the government’s conduct as “shrugging off its responsibility,” the court held that a welfare State cannot benefit from prolonged labour while denying the corresponding security, dignity, and retirement benefits.

This reasoning reframes long-term daily wage employment not as an exception to be tolerated, but as a governance failure to be corrected, reinforcing the principle that the State must lead by example in fair labour practices.

Why the Ruling Matters

By branding prolonged denial of regularisation as unfair labour practice, the judgment strengthens judicial scrutiny over the state’s treatment of long-serving daily wage workers. With its express application to all connected matters, the ruling is likely to have wider implications for Group-D workers in Haryana’s Forest Department and other departments governed by similar policies, reinforcing the principle that the State must act as a model employer, not merely a procedural authority.