Punjab and Haryana High Court Affirms Validity of 2016 Employee Welfare Act
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant ruling, clarifying that the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016 continues to remain in full force. This decision comes despite the state government introducing a bill in 2021 aimed at replacing this legislation. The court emphasized that since the Punjab Protection and Regularisation of Contractual Employees Bill, 2021 never received the governor's assent, it did not attain legal status, and thus, its repeal clause could not take effect.
Legal Basis for the Ruling
In its observations, the high court highlighted a fundamental constitutional principle. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, a bill does not become law until it is assented to by the governor. In this instance, the 2021 bill lacked such assent, meaning it could not legally repeal the existing 2016 Act. The court reiterated that a duly enacted legislation remains operative unless it is expressly repealed by the legislature or declared unconstitutional by a competent court. Consequently, the 2016 Act continues to govern claims for employee regularization.
Case Background and Petitioner's Claim
The ruling emerged from a petition filed by a contractual employee seeking regularization of his services in the municipal corporation of Amritsar. The petitioner had submitted a representation on January 20, 2017, requesting regularization under the provisions of the 2016 Act. When this representation went undecided, he approached the high court through a writ petition. In November 2021, the court directed the municipal commissioner to decide the representation by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law.
Section 3(1) of the 2016 Act provides for the regularization of Group A, B, and C employees who have worked on an ad hoc, contractual, daily wage, temporary, or work-charged basis for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the Act's enforcement. This is subject to conditions such as:
- Meeting eligibility criteria
- Possessing required qualifications
- Having an initial appointment made through a transparent process
Court's Decision on the Petitioner's Regularization
During the proceedings, it was argued that the order rejecting the petitioner's claim was based on the assumption that the 2016 Act had been repealed by the 2021 bill. However, the court dismissed this argument, affirming that the 2016 Act remained in force. Despite this, the court rejected the petitioner's claim for regularization on specific grounds. It found that his initial appointment was not made through a transparent process, as required under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. This highlights the court's strict adherence to the Act's provisions, even while upholding its validity.
This ruling underscores the importance of legal procedures in legislative changes and provides clarity for thousands of contractual employees in Punjab regarding their rights under the 2016 Act.
