Regularization claims by daily rated workers need statutory support; long service alone does not justify absorption or pay parity.

Daily rated or casual workers in a government company do not acquire a vested right to regularization, pay parity, or absorption merely because they have completed 240 days of work or rendered long service; regularization depends on the governing rules and any applicable settlement terms. In the absence of a statutory rule or sanctioned post, the court cannot direct creation of posts, continuation in service, absorption, or payment of regular salary, as such directions would intrude into executive functions. The stated position is that claims beyond the settlement framework are unsustainable without legal authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether daily rated workers in a government company acquire a right to regularization or pay parity merely because they have worked for more than 240 days and for a long period; (ii) Whether the court can direct absorption, continuation in service, creation of posts, or payment of regular salary in the absence of any statutory rule or sanctioned post.

Issue (i): Whether daily rated workers in a government company acquire a right to regularization or pay parity merely because they have worked for more than 240 days and for a long period.

Analysis: The status of a government servant is materially different from that of a workman employed in an industrial establishment or a government company. Completion of 240 days does not by itself create a vested right to regularization under industrial law. Regularization is distinct from permanence and can be ordered only in accordance with the governing rules. The existence of settlements governing engagement also confines the workmen's claims to the terms of those settlements.

Conclusion: The claim to regularization and regular pay scale on the basis of long service and completion of 240 days was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the court can direct absorption, continuation in service, creation of posts, or payment of regular salary in the absence of any statutory rule or sanctioned post.

Analysis: Creation and abolition of posts are executive functions, and the court cannot create posts or direct absorption where no sanctioned post exists. In the absence of a statutory rule conferring such entitlement, directions for continuation in service or payment of salary of regular employees amount to an impermissible exercise of executive power by the judiciary. A direction that effectively regularizes daily rated or casual employees cannot be sustained without legal authority.

Conclusion: The directions of the High Court for absorption, continuation, and payment of regular wages were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the writ petitions stood dismissed, and the respondents were left to enforce any rights arising from the settlements in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Daily rated or casual workers in a government company do not acquire a legal right to regularization, continuation, or pay parity merely by long service or completion of 240 days, and courts cannot compel creation of posts or grant regular employment absent statutory authority.

---