JUDGMENT : M. K. THAKKER, J. 1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.55 of 2019 dated 20.01.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted the benefit of permanency to the respondent from the date on which the respondent completed 240 days of service. The Tribunal has further directed that the interregnum period shall be considered for notional benefits. 2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondents had joined the petitioner–Municipality on the post of driver on a daily wage basis in the year 1995. Respondent No.1, namely Vinod Kumar Nathalal Tatamiya, joined on 01.05.1997, and Jitendra Kishanbhai Sondarwa joined on 09.10.1995. Their services came to be terminated by the petitioner, which was challenged by filing Reference (LCR) No.355 of 2001. The learned Labour Court allowed the said Reference in favour of the respondents by granting reinstatement with continuity of service. Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.2342 of 2015, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 27.02.2015, and thereafter, the respondents were permitted to resume duty from the year 2016 onwards. It was further contended before the learned Labour Court by the petitioner that another petition, being Special Civil Application No.7222 of 2016, is still pending before this Court, and during the pendency of the said petition, a second Reference was filed before the learned Tribunal, being Reference (IT) No.55 of 2019, seeking the benefits of regularisation. The learned Tribunal, after considering the sanctioned setup produced below Exhibit 37 as well as the cross- examination of the witnesses of the petitioner and the employees, has granted the benefit of permanency to the respondents upon completion of 240 days and has directed that the interregnum period shall be considered for notional benefits, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru for the respondents. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the appointments of the respondents were made dehors the recruitment rules and amounted to backdoor entries, which are expressly prohibited by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , reported in [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] . Learned advocate Mr. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the appointments of the respondents were made dehors the recruitment rules and amounted to backdoor entries, which are expressly prohibited by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , reported in [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] . Learned advocate Mr. Vyas further submits that as per the evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal by the present petitioner, the respondents did not complete 240 days of continuous service in any given year, and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of regularization. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas also submits that, in view of the fact that the expenditure of the Municipality exceeds 45%, and that the State Government has imposed a prohibition on regular recruitment, the petitioner-Municipality does not have the authority to regularize the services of the respondents as directed by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the respondents were allowed to resume duties only pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Labour Court, which were subsequently upheld by this Court however, the respondents cannot claim any entitlement to regularization or permanency benefits merely on that basis. Accordingly, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru appearing for the respondent submits that both the workmen, who are working with the petitioner for more than 20 years, have been deprived of the status of permanent employees, which is nothing but an unfair labour practice. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the principle of equal pay for equal work, as from the evidence of Dr. Dinesh Viradiya, who is the witness of the petitioner, it is admitted that the respondents are rendering the same type of work as the regular driver of the Nagarpalika and there is a huge difference in the salary paid to the respondents and the regular driver. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru submits that when the claim of regularization was raised, it was denied on the whimsical ground that the respondents are not fit for the post of driver. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru submits that they are already serving on the post of driver and performing their duty satisfactorily for the last 20 years, therefore, the question of holding qualifications does not arise. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru submits that they are already serving on the post of driver and performing their duty satisfactorily for the last 20 years, therefore, the question of holding qualifications does not arise. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru submits that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the set-up of the Nagarpalika produced below Exhibit 37, which reveals that there are nine posts of driver in the establishment of the Nagarpalika, out of which five posts are filled up and four posts are lying vacant, and for that, no efforts were made to fill them through regular recruitees. 5.2. In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru submits that no interference is required and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that initially the Reference came to be filed by the present respondents as Reference (LCR) No.355 of 2001, claiming that though the respondents were serving since 1997 and 1995 respectively, when they raised a claim for regularisation by filing Reference (IT) No.324 of 1997 before the appropriate Court, during the pendency of those proceedings their services came to be terminated. The learned Reference Court thereafter awarded the Reference in favour of the respondents on 23.01.2014 by granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. 7. Challenging the said order, writ petitions came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.2342 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No.7222 of 2016. This Court, by order dated 27.02.2015, observed that Exhibit 17, which is the document reflecting the month-wise details of service, established that in the preceding year the respondents had completed 240 days of service with the corporation. Upholding the award passed by the learned Reference Court, the petitions were dismissed, and consequently, the respondents were reinstated by the corporation in the year 2016. The contention raised by the present petitioner that the respondents had not completed 240 days in any year thus stands falsified by the observations recorded by this Court while disposing of Special Civil Application No.2342 of 2015. 8. In addition to that, the petitioner has produced evidence below Exhibit 24, which is the list of documentary evidence to establish the presence of the respondents. 8. In addition to that, the petitioner has produced evidence below Exhibit 24, which is the list of documentary evidence to establish the presence of the respondents. From the wage register, it emerges that after rejoining service pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court, the respondents have, from 2016 onward, completed 26–27 days of work in each month. During the cross-examination of the witness for the present petitioner, the respondents were able to establish that both employees have been working since 1996–1997 and that, although the work is of a perennial nature, they have been paid only a meager amount compared to regular employees. The witness of the petitioner has also admitted that another employee was regularized pursuant to an order passed by this Court, and the sanctioned set-up for the year 2021 shows that out of nine posts, five have been filled by regular employees while four posts remain vacant. It further emerges from the cross-examination that the petitioner has not made any efforts to fill up these posts through regular recruitment, even though the respondents have been continuously performing the same work for years together while being paid minimum wages. 9. In addition to that, Exhibit 36, which is produced by the present respondents, indicates that regular employees are receiving a salary of more than Rs.35,000/-, whereas the respondents are being paid only Rs.9,770/-. 10. At this stage,this Court has referred the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo V/s. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held the Para Nos.10 to 17 and 19 to 28 as under. " 10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the ofÏce premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings. 12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 14. The abrupt termination of the appellants’ services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 15. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 15. Furthermore, the respondents’ conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents’ unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants’ rightful claims to regularization. 16. The appellants’ consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents’ belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility. 17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle. 19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants’ roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified. 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social International Labour Organization- Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996) benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.” 11. Considering the overall facts of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned award. Hence, no interference is warranted, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.