Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate
Rule established
Employing workers as badli/temporary for years while they perform permanent nature duties constitutes unfair labour practice; such workers must be regularized
Facts
- Hindustan Lever employed workers as "badli" (substitute) and "temporary" for several years continuously
- These workers performed the same duties as permanent workers: same shifts, same machines, same supervisors
- Despite completing 240+ days of continuous service (the statutory threshold), they were kept in temporary status
- Purpose of prolonged temporary status: avoid obligations of permanency (retrenchment protection, PF, gratuity, increments)
- Workers demanded regularization; company refused
Issue
- Whether employing workers as temporary/badli for years while they perform duties of a permanent nature constitutes an unfair labour practice.
Held
- Keeping workers as "temporary" for years when they perform permanent nature duties IS an unfair labour practice specified in Schedule V (now Second Schedule IRC 2020)
- Workers who have completed 240 days (now 1 year under IRC 2020) of continuous service performing permanent nature duties MUST be regularized
- The employer cannot benefit from its own unfair practice of artificially maintaining temporary status
- Directed regularization of the affected workers
Ratio Decidendi
Prolonged temporary/badli status is a device to deny workers their statutory rights (permanency, retrenchment protection, PF/gratuity). Employing workers continuously for years while keeping them "temporary" on paper is an unfair labour practice because it denies them benefits that substantive law intends them to have. Form cannot override substance; extended continuous service performing permanent duties = permanent status.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: "ULP: prolonged temporary status: Hindustan Lever v. Kate (1995): workers performing permanent duties for years must be regularized. Keeping them 'temporary' = unfair labour practice."
- Part B: Key authority for essays on unfair labour practices. Shows how employers use contractual labels to circumvent statutory protections.
- Part C: Any problem where workers have 2+ years of continuous service but remain "temporary" or "contract": cite this case for regularization.
- Key line: "The employer cannot benefit from its own unfair practice of artificially maintaining temporary status."
- ---
Source
Source: SCC Online
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.