Legal Analysis of Part-Time Employment in India

The Legal Status of Part-Time Employees in India: Navigating Regularization, Pay Parity, and Statutory Rights

Introduction

Part-time employment, characterized by working hours less than the standard full-time schedule, has become an increasingly significant feature of the Indian labor market. While offering flexibility to both employers and employees, the legal framework governing part-time work, particularly concerning rights to regularization, pay parity with full-time counterparts, and entitlement to statutory benefits, remains complex and subject to extensive judicial scrutiny. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal position of part-time employees in India, drawing upon key legislative provisions and landmark judicial pronouncements. It examines the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, primarily focusing on the challenges part-time employees face in seeking permanent status and equitable remuneration, especially within public employment, while also exploring their rights under industrial and labor welfare legislations.

Defining "Part-Time Employee" and the Legislative Landscape

Indian labor law does not offer a single, uniform definition of a "part-time employee" applicable across all sectors. The term generally refers to individuals engaged for a shorter duration per day or week than full-time employees. Their status and rights often depend on the specific statute under which their employment is considered. For instance, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not explicitly differentiate between full-time and part-time employees for the purpose of defining a 'workman'. The Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. A. Sankaralingam[12] affirmed that a part-time employee, working under the control and supervision of an employer, can be considered a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court observed, "There is of course no reason why a person who is only employed part-time, should not be a servant and it is doubtful whether regular part-time service can be considered even prima facie to suggest anything other than a contract of service."[12] This recognition is crucial as it extends protections like those under Section 25-F (conditions precedent to retrenchment) to part-time workmen who fulfill the criteria of continuous service. The Kerala High Court in New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Sankaralingam[17] echoed this, stating, "the definition of 'workman' as given in the act does not make any distinction between full time employee and part time employee."

Some state-specific Shops and Establishment Acts may also contain provisions relevant to part-time employment, as alluded to in A. Sankaralingam[12] which referenced Section 2(14) of "the Act" (likely a state-level Shops and Establishment Act) in determining "person employed".

The Quest for Regularization in Public Employment

The General Prohibition and the Umadevi Doctrine

The claim for regularization of services by part-time employees in government departments and public sector undertakings has been a contentious issue. The seminal judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State Of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others[1] laid down stringent principles governing regularization. While *Umadevi* primarily addressed temporary, contractual, and daily-wage employees, its ratio has been consistently extended to part-time employees. The core principle enunciated in *Umadevi* is that public employment must adhere to constitutional schemes (Articles 14 and 16) involving regular recruitment processes, and courts cannot direct regularization of those appointed dehors the rules, especially if the appointments are illegal. Regularization can, at best, be a one-time measure for 'irregular' (not illegal) appointees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without the cover of court orders.[1, 3]

Subsequent judicial pronouncements have firmly established that part-time employees are generally not entitled to regularization. The primary reasoning, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Union Of India And Others (S) v. Ilmo Devi And Another (S)[10], is that "Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees." This position has been reiterated in numerous cases, including State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary To Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai And Others v. M. Seeniammal And Others (Madras High Court)[9], State Of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary To Government, Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Secretariat And Another v. A. Singamuthu[13, 19, 20], and Dhanraj Kumhar v. State (Education Department)Ors (Rajasthan High Court)[16]. The Central Administrative Tribunal in Anita Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi[11] also affirmed this stance.

The Supreme Court in Secretary To Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy And Others[18], while dealing with regularization of part-time sweepers directed by the High Court, clarified the law, stating that such directions are contrary to the principles in *Umadevi*, even if complied with by the state under duress of contempt.

Limited Scope for Regularization Schemes

While the general rule is against regularization, if the State itself formulates a specific scheme for regularization of part-time employees who meet certain criteria (such as length of service against a post that is subsequently sanctioned or deemed necessary), such a scheme might be permissible, provided it aligns with the constitutional principles and the exceptions carved out in *Umadevi*. However, the courts have been cautious. As noted in *M. Seeniammal*[9] and *Anita Kumari*[11], "Even where a Scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut off date... it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates." The case of Commissioner And Director Others v. V. Karunakaran Another (Madras High Court)[22] referenced G.O.Ms. No.22, dated 28.02.2006, for regularization of part-time employees on completion of ten years of service. However, such instances must be viewed in the context of specific government orders and their consistency with the overarching principles of *Umadevi*. The regularization of daily-wage workers in State Of Gujarat And Others v. Pwd Employees Union And Others[7] was based on a specific 1988 government resolution, the applicability of which was debated and ultimately upheld for those workers.

The Principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and Part-Time Employment

General Inapplicability for Part-Time Government Employees

The constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work," flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution, has often been invoked by part-time employees seeking parity in salary with their full-time counterparts. However, the judiciary has largely been unreceptive to such claims from part-time employees in government service. The Supreme Court in Union Of India And Others (S) v. Ilmo Devi And Another (S)[10] explicitly stated, "Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work." This was echoed in M. Seeniammal[9], A. Singamuthu[13], and Dhanraj Kumhar[16].

The reasoning often involves the inherent differences in working hours, responsibilities, and the nature of engagement. The Supreme Court in State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others[2], while affirming equal pay for equal work for *temporary* employees performing identical duties as regular employees, laid down stringent criteria for such comparison, including identical duties, comparable qualifications, and similar responsibilities. Applying these criteria to part-time work often reveals dissimilarities that negate the claim for pay parity with full-time regular staff. The case of Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union Of India And Others[5] also highlighted that distinct employment conditions and non-comparable roles can defeat claims for equal pay.

Considerations for Minimum Pay

While full pay parity is generally denied, there have been instances where courts have considered directing a minimum level of remuneration for part-time employees. In Tourism Corporation Of Gujarat Ltd. v. Kalu Valji Jethwa (Gujarat High Court)[14], the court, referencing the Sastry Award, directed that "a minimum of one-third of the appropriate rate of pay and dearness allowance should be given to part-time employees if such part-time employees work for not less than 7 hours per week." This suggests a judicial concern for ensuring at least a basic level of fair wages, distinct from full pay parity.

Part-Time Employees as "Workmen" under Industrial Law

Recognition and Protections

A significant distinction exists between the rights of part-time employees in the context of public employment (regularization, pay parity with government scales) and their rights under industrial law. As established in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. A. Sankaralingam[12], part-time employees who fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are entitled to the protections afforded by the Act. This includes the provisions of Section 25-F regarding retrenchment compensation and notice, provided they have completed the requisite period of continuous service (typically 240 days in a calendar year). The Court in A. Sankaralingam[12] noted the preponderance of judicial opinion in High Courts supporting this view and respectfully agreed with opinions from the Delhi, Gujarat, and Rajasthan High Courts. This means that while a part-time government employee might not be regularized, if their termination amounts to retrenchment under the ID Act and they qualify as a workman, they can claim statutory dues under Section 25-F.

Entitlement to Other Statutory Benefits

Provident Fund and Other Social Security

Part-time employment does not automatically disentitle individuals from statutory social security benefits if the relevant statutes cover them. In M/s Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.[21], the Supreme Court dealt with the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to part-time librarians. The case proceeded on the premise that such part-time employees could be covered, with the dispute centering on the liability for contributions. This indicates that part-time employees can be eligible for benefits like provident fund if they meet the criteria laid down in the specific welfare legislation.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Precedents: A Synthesis

The jurisprudence concerning part-time employees in India is largely dominated by the principles set forth in Secretary, State Of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others[1]. Its application by the Supreme Court in Union Of India And Others (S) v. Ilmo Devi And Another (S)[10] has cemented the position that part-time employees in public service generally cannot claim regularization or pay parity with regular full-time employees, primarily due to not being appointed against sanctioned posts and the inherent differences in their terms of engagement. This stance is consistently reflected in judgments like State Of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary To Government, Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Secretariat And Another v. A. Singamuthu[13, 19, 20] and various High Court decisions such as State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary To Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai And Others v. M. Seeniammal And Others[9].

However, the judgment in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. A. Sankaralingam[12] provides a crucial counterpoint by affirming the status of part-time employees as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereby granting them access to protections against arbitrary termination and rights to retrenchment benefits. This highlights a dichotomy: limited rights within the framework of public service law concerning permanency and equal pay, but potential recourse under general labor laws for specific employment protections and benefits like PF as seen in M/s Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha[21].

Cases like Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed Under P&T Department Through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union Of India And Others[6] and Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar And Others[8], which directed regularization or pay parity for casual/daily-rated labor, must be understood in their specific factual contexts and pre-*Umadevi* or as applying to specific regularization schemes, and are generally distinguished when dealing with part-time employees post-*Umadevi*.

Conclusion

The legal framework for part-time employees in India presents a nuanced picture. In the realm of public employment, the judiciary, guided by the principles of Umadevi, has consistently held that part-time employees are not entitled to regularization or pay parity with regular government employees, primarily because their appointments are typically not against sanctioned posts and differ significantly in nature from full-time regular employment. Claims based on long years of service or sympathy alone do not suffice to override the constitutional mandate for regular recruitment.

However, this does not render part-time employees without legal recourse. Under industrial law, part-time employees who qualify as 'workmen' are entitled to significant protections, including those related to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Furthermore, they may be covered by various social security legislations, such as the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The challenge lies in clearly demarcating the applicable legal regime and the specific rights that flow therefrom. While the path to permanency in government service is largely closed for part-time employees, the law does provide a safety net against arbitrary actions and ensures certain basic employment and welfare benefits, reflecting a judicial balancing act between principles of public administration and labor welfare.

References

  1. Secretary, State Of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others (2006 SCC 4 1, Supreme Court Of India, 2006) [Ref. 1]
  2. State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others (2017 SCC 1 148, Supreme Court Of India, 2016) [Ref. 2]
  3. State Of Karnataka & Ors. v. M L Kesari & Ors. S (2010 SCC L&S 2 826, Supreme Court Of India, 2010) [Ref. 3]
  4. State Of Haryana And Others v. Piara Singh And Others (1992 SCC 4 118, Supreme Court Of India, 1992) [Ref. 4]
  5. Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union Of India And Others . (1991 SCC 1 619, Supreme Court Of India, 1991) [Ref. 5]
  6. Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed Under P&T Department Through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union Of India And Others (1988 SCC 1 122, Supreme Court Of India, 1987) [Ref. 6]
  7. State Of Gujarat And Others v. Pwd Employees Union And Others (2013 SCC 12 417, Supreme Court Of India, 2013) [Ref. 7]
  8. Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar And Others (2001 SCC 3 574, Supreme Court Of India, 2001) [Ref. 8]
  9. State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary To Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai And Others v. M. Seeniammal And Others (Madras High Court, 2014) [Ref. 9]
  10. Union Of India And Others (S) v. Ilmo Devi And Another (S) (Supreme Court Of India, 2021) [Ref. 10]
  11. Anita Kumari v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2024) [Ref. 11]
  12. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. A. Sankaralingam . (Supreme Court Of India, 2008) [Ref. 12]
  13. State Of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary To Government, Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Secretariat And Another v. A. Singamuthu . (Supreme Court Of India, 2017) [Ref. 13]
  14. Tourism Corporation Of Gujarat Ltd. v. Kalu Valji Jethwa . (Gujarat High Court, 2007) [Ref. 14]
  15. Gobind, v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar And Another, (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2008) [Ref. 15 - noted *Ilmo Devi* reference]
  16. Dhanraj Kumhar v. State (Education Department)Ors (Rajasthan High Court, 2017) [Ref. 16]
  17. New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Sankaralingam (Kerala High Court, 2008) [Ref. 17]
  18. Secretary To Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy And Others (2014 SCC 4 769, Supreme Court Of India, 2014) [Ref. 18]
  19. State Of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary To Government, Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Secretariat And Another v. A. Singamuthu . (2017 SCC 4 113, Supreme Court Of India, 2017) [Ref. 19]
  20. Secretary To Govt. Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Secretariat And Anr. v. A. Singamuthu (2017 SCC ONLINE SC 205, Supreme Court Of India, 2017) [Ref. 20]
  21. M/s Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (2017 SCC 5 579, Supreme Court Of India, 2017) [Ref. 21]
  22. Commissioner And Director Others v. V. Karunakaran Another (2011 CWC 2 80, Madras High Court, 2011) [Ref. 22]
  23. B. Sasidharan v. Director Of Rural Development Panagal Building Saidapet (Madras High Court, 2016) [Ref. 23]
  24. Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2025) [Ref. 24 - noted *Ilmo Devi* reference]
  25. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  26. Constitution of India