Contractor

Petitioners were rendering janitorial services in various offices and branches of the state owned Bank for several years, on the basis of contracts executed directly between them and the bank for different spans of 11 months, from time to time

Services rendered and work performed by the petitioners was of a permanent nature

Like any other employee or worker, the petitioners were rendering manual services for the Bank

Neither the petitioners were supplying any manpower nor any goods to the Bank; nor were they getting any job done by acquiring and/or engaging the services of others; nor were they paid on item to item and/or project basis, thus they clearly did not fall within the definition or category of "contractors"

Bank could not be allowed to exploit its workers and defeat the spirit and purpose of law by calling such workers as "contractors" instead of "contract employees" and "contract employment"

Since the petitioners for all intents and purposes were engaged/employed by the Bank and were being paid salary/ compensation for the services they rendered, on monthly basis from year to year, and having so served for more than one year on several 11 months stints, they had earned entitlement for regularization of their services with the Bank

Supreme Court directed the bank to regularize the services of the petitioners as permanent employees

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners were rendering janitorial services in various offices and branches of the state owned Bank for several years, on the basis of contracts executed directly between them and the bank for different spans of 11 months, from time to time

Services rendered and work performed by the petitioners was of a permanent nature

Like any other employee or worker, the petitioners were rendering manual services for the Bank

Neither the petitioners were supplying any manpower nor any goods to the Bank; nor were they getting any job done by acquiring and/or engaging the services of others; nor were they paid on item to item and/or project basis, thus they clearly did not fall within the definition or category of "contractors"

Bank could not be allowed to exploit its workers and defeat the spirit and purpose of law by calling such workers as "contractors" instead of "contract employees" and "contract employment"

Since the petitioners for all intents and purposes were engaged/employed by the Bank and were being paid salary/ compensation for the services they rendered, on monthly basis from year to year, and having so served for more than one year on several 11 months stints, they had earned entitlement for regularization of their services with the Bank

Supreme Court directed the bank to regularize the services of the petitioners as permanent employees

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Present writ petition was incompetent which was dismissed in circumstances, however contractors would be free to file suit for their claims against the government if law allowed so.