21 6 8 1

:=::::::::::::::::::::::::==::====::::::::::::--..
~ ~ ===========--,_~.J.T.?1 he~Co~n~st~iluf!!l1~·on~a~ IL~a~w~o)_[_ff!}_ln~di!!_=.J.._

5.H. RIGHT TO WORK TO EDUCATION AND TO PUBLIC

. ASSISTANCE IN .CERTAIN CASES [Art. 41 1 . (SN)
. . "Art. ~1. Right to work to . . . . . . in cases:- The State shall, w!thin the limits of ,
its economic capacit 8 ' d education and to public ass1s~~ce mcerta. the right to work, to education and to PUbli
assistance in cases ~f n development, make effective prov1s1~n for securing d in other cases of undeserved want." c
. unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, an
IMPORTANT POINTS: .

A. Article 41 directs the State thatd . d' · ··t · ·c capacity and development, it is the duty
of the Stat t O . epen mg upon Is econorn1 . . · - .
e provide right to work, right to education and right to ass• sta nce.
B. PR?B~EM: Can a State Government appoint workers on daily wages and keeping them without
·
regularisation of. their services . · · · th ? ·
.· - ·
and without pay-fixation for years toge er·
S~LUTION: _No: .The State Government appoint workers on daily wages, but it c~nnot _keep t~ern
w1tho_ut regulan~at1on .of their services and without pay-fixation for years together. It is against Article
41. The following case is the leading .on this issue:-
Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others vs. Kerala Water Authority (AIR 1990 SC 2228 )
Brief Facts: In ·the K~-a Water Supply Department, except few officials, various persons were
appointed in different capacities, such as .cleaners, pump operators, draftsmen, drivers, etc., were
· appointe.d as casual labourers on lesser wages through the Employment Exchange between 1981 and
1988. A separate corporation was established for the water suppiy under the Kerala Water Supply and
Sewerage Act, 1986. Even under the Corporation also, there ·were no pay-scales and promotions for
the casual labourers. Moreover, some of the workers were terminated. In this connection, several batch
petitions were filed before the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT: The Supreme Court gave judgment and orders in favour of the petitioners-workers.
PRINCIPLES: (i) This Order will regulate the services not only of the parties to the present petitions but
also all others similarly situated including those who may be parties to other proceedings pending in
different Courts.
(ii) Employees who have been ~o~king on the establishn:1ent since long, and who possess the requisite
qualifications for the job as obtaining on the ~ate of ~h_eir employment must be allowed to continue on
their jobs and their services should be re~ulansed. It Is unfair and unreasonable to remove people who
have been rendering service since sometime as such removal has serious consequences. The family of
the employee which has settle_d d~wn _and_ acco~m~dated its needs to the emoluments received by the
bread winner will face economic ruination, if the Job is suddenly taken away. Besides, the precious period
of early life devoted in the servic~ of th_e establishment will be wholly wasted and the incumbent may be
rendered 'age barred' for securing a Job elsewhere. _ .

(iii) Such behaviour would b~ an affront_to the con~ept of job security and would run counter to the
constitutional philosophy, particularly the concept of right to work in Article 41 of the Constitution.