Case Name – The Secretary, Public Works Department vs. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf
| Citation | (2023) SCC Online SC 1087 |
| Date of Judgement | 5 December 2023 |
| Court Name | Supreme Court of India |
| Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner | The Secretary, Public Works Department (PWD), Maharashtra |
| Defendant/Respondent | Tukaram Pandurang Saraf |
| Judge | Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia |
Introduction
This case marked a crucial reaffirmation of the principle that public authorities must act reasonably and justly while terminating the services of employees, especially when such termination has life-altering consequences. At its heart, this case is about a man, Tukaram Pandurang Saraf, whose services as a daily wage worker were abruptly discontinued by the Maharashtra PWD, without notice, process, or any apparent wrongdoing. The case raised a fundamental question: Can the government casually discard low-wage workers without due process, merely because their job was “temporary”? The Supreme Court’s response was a clear no.
Facts of the case
Tukaram Pandurang Saraf was engaged by the Public Works Department (PWD) of Maharashtra in 1995 as a daily wage labourer. Despite the label “daily wager,” Tukaram worked continuously for over a decade, performing tasks identical to those of regular employees such as road maintenance, construction support, and handling tools and materials but without the security or benefits that came with a permanent job.
He had no break in service, and his name was routinely included in work schedules. His wages were disbursed monthly, often after delays, but he remained committed and dependable. His performance was never questioned, and there were no complaints, disciplinary proceedings, or adverse reports against him throughout this long period.
In 2006, without any prior notice, explanation, or hearing, his services were abruptly terminated. He was informed orally that his name was being struck off from the muster roll. No formal order of termination was passed, and no reasons were recorded. Essentially, he was made to vanish from employment records without process or justification. Shocked and helpless, Saraf tried to seek clarification from the PWD office, but received no response. Left with no income and no alternate employment, he approached the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contending that his termination was not only unjust but also illegal under Section 25F, which mandates notice and compensation before retrenching a workman who has completed 240 days of continuous service in a year.
The Labour Court examined the records and held in his favour, observing that –
- He had been in continuous service for over 10 years, far exceeding the threshold of 240 days.
- The PWD had failed to produce any records of notice, retrenchment compensation, or valid justification for termination.
The termination was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and labour law safeguards. It ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Aggrieved, the Maharashtra PWD challenged the Labour Court’s decision before the Bombay High Court, which upheld the award. Still unwilling to comply, the Department filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which led to the present appeal
Issue of the case
- Whether the termination of a long-serving daily wager without inquiry or notice violates principles of natural justice?
- Whether reinstatement with back wages is justified in cases where a workman is engaged for years but technically not a permanent employee?
- What protections do daily wagers have against arbitrary termination by the State?
Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a firm and empathetic judgment, rejecting the Public Works Department’s appeal and upholding the concurrent findings of both the Labour Court and the Bombay High Court. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, held that the termination of Tukaram Pandurang Saraf’s services, without prior notice, retrenchment compensation, or an opportunity to be heard, was blatantly illegal and violative of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court noted that Saraf had completed over 240 days of continuous service in multiple years, which legally entitled him to the protections of Section 25F. The PWD’s failure to comply with this basic statutory requirement rendered its actions not only procedurally defective but fundamentally unjust.
The Court dismissed the State’s argument that Saraf was merely a daily wager, observing that the classification of a worker cannot be used as an excuse to escape statutory and constitutional obligations. It emphasized that employment under the State must be governed by fairness, transparency, and legal consistency. Even temporary or casual workers acquire rights over time, particularly when they have been performing duties regularly and continuously for years. The bench observed that “the State, as a model employer, cannot treat its workers like disposable cogs in a machine.” This statement highlighted the expectation that government departments should lead by example in respecting labour rights and ensuring procedural integrity.
As to the remedy, the Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision to grant reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. It clarified that while reinstatement is not an automatic consequence in every case of illegal termination, in this case, it was fully justified. Saraf had been arbitrarily removed after years of dedicated service, and the employer had produced no evidence of misconduct, redundancy, or financial hardship. The award of back wages was also found to be fair and proportionate, given the sheer duration of wrongful unemployment and the economic hardship endured by the workman. The Court noted that partial back wages (50%) struck a balance between compensating the victim and not overburdening the State exchequer.
In a more reflective part of the judgment, the Court acknowledged the deeper, often ignored, human cost of arbitrary public employment decisions. It noted that for a person in Saraf’s position economically vulnerable, lacking in formal contracts, and dependent on daily wages losing employment without cause can mean the loss of dignity, security, and basic survival. The judgment criticized the prevalent practice of repeatedly hiring workers as “daily wagers” for years, just to avoid regularization and legal obligations. The bench made it clear that this systemic evasion of labour protections must stop, and that the judiciary will not turn a blind eye to such exploitative arrangements.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s judgment not only secured justice for Tukaram Saraf but also sent a broader message: public authorities must act lawfully, fairly, and with compassion. The case stands as a strong reminder that legality is not just about ticking boxes but about honoring the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and fair treatment, especially when the State is the employer.
Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning rested on both legal and human grounds –
Legal Grounds – The termination was in complete violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This section mandates that workmen who have completed 240 days of continuous service in a year cannot be terminated without one month’s notice and retrenchment compensation. Saraf had completed over a decade of service. Thus, his termination was not just illegal, it was unconstitutional.
Natural Justice – No inquiry, no show-cause notice, no hearing, this was a textbook case of denial of natural justice. The Court reiterated that “the government, even while acting in an employer capacity, cannot shed its constitutional obligations.”
Economic Impact – The Court acknowledged the socio-economic vulnerability of daily wage workers. It observed that “to arbitrarily throw out a man who has worked for 10 years without fault is not only unjust, but inhuman.” It noted that courts must factor in the “dignity of labour and the need for social security” when deciding such cases.
Conclusion
This case is a significant moment in Indian labour jurisprudence. The Supreme Court didn’t just rule on the legality of termination; it spotlighted the human cost of bureaucratic indifference. By protecting a vulnerable worker from arbitrary dismissal, the Court reaffirmed the principle that no one permanent or temporary should be treated as disposable. The judgment sends a clear message to government departments: while administrative flexibility is important, it cannot come at the cost of fairness, dignity, and constitutional morality. The Supreme Court once again reminded us that “public employment is not charity, but a promise of procedural fairness.”
Written by Prisha Verma, 3rd year LL.B, New Law College, Pune