Supreme Court news: Drawing on vivid images from India’s space journey, rockets once carried on bicycles and satellites hauled on bullock carts, the Supreme Court has said that denying recognition and job security to long-serving daily-wage employees of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) “strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public employment”, and directed their regularisation after decades of service.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a civil appeal filed by R Iyyappan and 33 other daily-wage workers challenging the Madras High Court’s July 8, 2024, judgment, which had upheld the rejection of their plea for regularisation.

“To disregard or discriminate against such individuals in matters of service recognition would be to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India to the Moon and beyond. The State, as a model employer, cannot afford to treat a segment of its workforce, those who have contributed, however indirectly, to national endeavours of paramount importance, with arbitrariness or indifference,” the Supreme Court bench said on April 29.

It added, “Denying them even the basic courtesy of a recognised service status, while reaping the benefits of their labour, strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public employment.”

The appellants were engaged between 1991 and 1997 as daily-wage labourers at ISRO’s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre in Mahendragiri, performing tasks such as loading, unloading, shifting materials, and maintaining facilities. Despite rendering continuous service for 14 to 26 years, they remained outside the formal employment structure.

Their legal battle began when they sought regularisation under a 1993 scheme granting temporary status to casual labourers. After years of inaction, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which on March 9, 2010, directed the authorities to frame a scheme and create posts to absorb such workers permanently within six months.

This direction attained finality after being upheld by the Madras High Court on March 14, 2011, and by the Supreme Court on July 29, 2011.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the authorities had complied with earlier binding directions of the CAT (affirmed up to the Supreme Court) that required creation of posts and a scheme for permanent absorption, or whether the 2012 “Gang Labourers Scheme”, which continued to engage them as temporary workers, violated those directions.

In response to the Supreme Court’s directions in 2011, the authorities introduced the “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012” on September 3, 2012.

However, instead of creating permanent posts, the scheme merely provided for temporary engagement on daily wages up to the age of 60, with a vague possibility of future regularisation.

The workers challenged this, arguing that it was a clear departure from binding judicial directions. After another round of litigation, including dismissal by the tribunal in 2018 and the high court in 2024, the matter returned to the Supreme Court.

In a notable departure from conventional service law rulings, the Supreme Court devoted a substantial portion of its judgment to recognising the contribution of support staff in India’s scientific ecosystem.

Recalling the early years of the space programme, the bench noted, “The success of a rocket or a satellite mission… is equally the result of a seamless chain of support… The last man standing in this chain…performs duties that may appear sporadic…however essential.”

It warned that ignoring or discriminating against such workers would undermine the very ethos that propelled India’s scientific progress.

The Supreme Court expressed “serious disapproval” of the authorities’ conduct, noting that the state’s obligation to act as a model employer flows directly from Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

It was observed that forcing workers to undertake a prolonged legal struggle for basic service recognition reflects systemic unfairness and administrative apathy.