Hyderabad: The Telangana high court has ruled that a group of paramedical staff working on a temporary basis at the general hospital of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Hyderabad, were subjected to prolonged injustice, and directed that their services be regularised.The employees, initially appointed on fixed six-month terms, were repeatedly reappointed after short artificial breaks, keeping them in an ad hoc status for over a decade. The court observed that such treatment amounted to unfair labour practice and hostile discrimination, particularly since similarly placed employees in other cases were regularised after just two years of service. The petitioners, comprising medical technicians, nursing assistants, dressers, pharmacists, and other paramedical staff, were recruited between 2005 and 2012 through employment exchanges, campus selections, internal circulars, and written tests, all on an ad hoc basis. Ad hoc employeesPetitioners’ counsel Chikkudu Prabhakar informed the court that their initial recruitment was legal and in accordance with applicable rules. However, despite being appointed for fixed terms, the company kept reappointing them with brief interruptions, thereby prolonging their temporary status unlawfully. Prabhakar argued, “This is illegal under unfair labour practices as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appointment and continuation of the petitioners as ad hoc employees is unreasonable, arbitrary, and illegal.” Hearing the matter, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka said that this amounted to unfair labour practice and hostile discrimination, especially since similarly placed employees in other instances were regularised after only two years of service. Job securityThe judge also referred to settlements made in March 2016, where the company had agreed to continue the petitioners’ services on existing terms, while extending benefits such as ESI, EPF, housing, and medical insurance. According to the court, this demonstrated the company’s acknowledgment of the necessity of their services, yet it continued to deny them job security and proper payscales.Relying on precedents set by the Supreme Court and the high court, Justice Bheemapaka held that continuing the petitioners in an ad hoc capacity violated their legal rights and their entitlement to fair treatment. The court therefore ruled that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as permanent employees.
