Punjab employee welfare law of 2016 still in force, clears high court

Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court made it clear that the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016 continued to remain in force, as it was not legally repealed, even though the state govt introduced a bill in 2021 seeking to replace it.The HC observed that the Punjab Protection and Regularisation of Contractual Employees Bill, 2021 never received the assent of the governor and therefore never attained the status of law. Consequently, the repeal clause contained in the bill could not take effect, and the 2016 Act continued to hold the field. The observations came while deciding a petition concerning a contractual employee who sought regularisation of his services in the municipal corporation, Amritsar. The petitioner earlier submitted a representation dated Jan 20, 2017, requesting that his services be regularised in terms of the provisions of the 2016 Act. When the representation was not decided, he approached the high court through a writ petition, following which the court in Nov 2021 directed the commissioner of the municipal corporation to decide the representation by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Section 3(1) of the 2016 Act provides for regularisation of Group A, B and C employees working on an ad hoc, contractual, daily wage, temporary, or work-charged basis under the state govt or its entities for a continuous period of not less than 3 years prior to the coming into force of the Act, subject to certain conditions such as eligibility criteria, required qualifications, and that the initial appointment was made through a transparent process. During the proceedings, it was argued that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim proceeded on the assumption that the 2016 Act stood repealed by the proposed 2021 legislation. However, the court held that a Bill does not become law until it receives the assent of the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution, and in the absence of such assent, the 2021 Bill could not be treated as repealing the existing statute. The court further reiterated the settled legal position that a duly enacted legislation continues to remain in force unless it is expressly repealed by the legislature or declared unconstitutional by a competent court. In the present case, since no valid repeal took place, the 2016 Act remained operative and continued to govern claims for regularisation under its provisions. However, while affirming that the act of 2016 remained in force, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim for regularisation on the ground that his initial appointment was not made through a transparent process, as required under Section 3(1)(c) of the act. MSID:: 129157208 413 |