BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, DG KHAN and another vs MUHAMMAD ALTAF and others
This petition arises from a judgment by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education's appeal against an order directing the regularization of the respondents' services. The respondents, employed as daily wagers (Drivers, Clerks, Naib Qasids, and Security Guards) since 1996, faced recurring termination of contracts every 89 days, followed by immediate resumption. The core legal question was whether the petitioner-Board could circumvent the regularization of long-serving employees through the mechanism of artificial breaks in service. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the practice of terminating and rehiring employees after 89-day intervals was a mala fide attempt to break the continuity of service and avoid statutory regularization obligations. The Court held that such artificial breaks do not negate the respondents' entitlement to regularization after serving for a significant duration. The judgment reinforces the principle that employers cannot use mala fide contractual maneuvers to deprive long-term daily wage employees of their legitimate right to regularization, emphasizing that substance prevails over the form of employment contracts when determining service continuity.
- Does the practice of terminating and rehiring daily wage employees every 89 days constitute a valid break in service?
- Can an employer use artificial breaks in employment contracts to avoid the regularization of long-serving daily wage staff?
- Is the regularization of daily wage employees who have served for a significant period mandatory when the termination mechanism is found to be mala fide?
ORDER
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---Brought into question through this petition is the judgment dated 25.9.2017, whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed in limine the appeal filed by the petitioner-Board challenging the order dated 01.6.2017, in terms whereof a learned Single Judge of the said court allowed it petition filed by the respondents for their regularization in service with the petitioner-Board.
2. The respondents were employed by the petitioner-Board, they have been working as Drivers, Clerks, Naib Qasids and Security Guards, for a considerable period of time, on daily wages. Some of them have been so working since the year 1996. However, their employment contracts were terminated after every 89 days and were resumed a day there after. All of them have certainly served the petitioner-Board for not less than nine months, however with artificial breaks, as noted above, this was done to break the continuity of their service with mala fide intent to avoid their regularization. The respondents, despite the fact that their services had matured and were under the law required to be regularized, and instead of doing so, as noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, contemplated to make fresh appointments through advertisement, which prompted the respondents to file the writ petition which culminated into the impugned judgment.
3. We in the circumstances as noted above, do not find any lacuna in impugned judgment, legal or otherwise, and find no justification for interfering with the same. The petition is therefore dismissed.