This matter originated from writ petitions filed by daily wage employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, seeking regularization of their services after years of employment. The High Court granted the petitions and dismissed the Board's intra-court appeals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether daily wage workers performing jobs of a permanent nature are entitled to regularization despite artificial breaks in service created by the employer. The Supreme Court dismissed the Board's petitions, holding that the respondents had served for many years and were performing duties of a permanent nature. The Court observed that the practice of hiring workers for 89-day cycles to create artificial breaks in service was a 'clumsy attempt' to deny continuity of service. Following the precedent set in a similar case involving the BISE Rawalpindi, the Court ruled that similarly placed employees must be treated equally. The key principle laid down is that the nature of the job, rather than the nomenclature of the contract or artificial breaks, determines the right to regularization.
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---Since the respondents, who have been working with the petitioner-Board since last many years on daily wages, were not being regularized by the Board, they filed Writ Petitions before the Lahore High Court which petitions were granted. The Board challenged the said orders through ICAs, which appeals have been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court.
2. As rightly noted in the impugned judgments, the issue involved in the cases, i,e, regularization of the daily wage workers/contract employees, has already been settled by this Court, through judgment dated 7th March, 2018, in Civil Petition No, 2509/2006, whereby, this Court has upheld judgment dated 7th June, 2016 in terms whereof the Lahore High Court has allowed a similar petition filed by the daily, wage, workers/contract employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi for regularization of their services.
3. It is an admitted position that the respondents before us have been working with the petitioner- Board since long, however, in their clumsy attempt to break the continuity of their service, the petitioner has been employing them for 89 days only, and has been re-hiring them for the next 89 days, and thus continued to avail their service for a long period by creating artificial breaks in their service period. The fact that they have, in fact, continuously served the petitioner for a long period of time, albeit the breaks created by the petitioner, as noted above, clearly shows that they have been performing job of permanent nature and have not been serving on casual posts. Admittedly, similarly placed employees of BISC Rawalpindi, have been regularized in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court, upheld by this Court, as noted above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight a single feature distinguishing the nature of the respondents' job/employment, disentitling them from regularization. The respondents, in the circumstances, were rightly found eligible and entitled for regularization of their service with the petitioner-Board, and have rightly been so ordered through the impugned judgments and we do not find any justification for interfering therewith. The petitions in the circumstances are dismissed.