The court established that the engagement of the CHVs constituted a master-servant relationship with the Corporation, but held that their special engagement did not require the Corporation to treat them as regular employees or extend service benefits available to regular employees to them.

This group of petitions concerns Voluntary Health Workers appointed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, particularly in relation to their status as workmen of the Corporation and their entitlement to permanency of tenure based on such status.

2. Writ Petition No.7958 of 2005, which is heard as a lead petition, is filed by a registered trade union, who claims to be a recognized union of workmen of the Respondent Corporation, representing the nursing and paramedical staff including Women Community Health Workers employed by the Corporation. The following are the facts of the case stated briefly :

2.1 In the year 1988, the Respondent – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“Corporation”) created 176 Health Posts (as Urban Health Centres) with financial assistance from World Bank through the State Government. This project, which was meant to supplement the Health Services and Family Welfare Programme of the Corporation, was known as “India Population Project V” (“project”). Each Health Post was to have a Medical Officer and other full time nursing and paramedical staff. These officers and staff were to be assisted by Women Health Workers working parttime.

2.2 The Corporation appointed about 3400 Volunteer Health Workers as a link between the Health Posts and the community served by the Health Posts on an honorarium of Rs.200/p. m. (These workers are referred to as 'CHVs' hereafter.) These appointments, according to the Corporation, were temporary and made on a voluntary basis, and do not come under Corporation employments or rules made for the same. On the other hand, it is the Petitioner's case that the CHVs were duly appointed, though on a temporary basis, in accordance with rules and procedure framed by the Corporation, and are Corporation employees.

2.3 The project period, originally from 1988 to 31 March 1996, was extended by the Corporation with effect from 1 April 1996 inter alia by taking over the financial burden. The Health Posts including the engagement of CHVs were continued by the Corporation. The project continues till date with about 3500 CHVs working on it.

2.4 Some time in or about 2000, the Petitioner Union raised an industrial dispute concerning the employment of CHVs. It was their case that the CHVs were appointed as per rules framed by the Corporation as part time temporary employees in permanent posts; that the CHVs have put in over 10 years of continuous service in the Public Health Department of the Corporation on a fixed remuneration of Rs.500/p. m., increased recently to Rs.750/p. m.; that the CHVs were working on par with other part time workmen of the Corporation and ought to be treated as part time workmen of the Corporation as defined in the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 in the absence of any other certified Standing Orders applicable to them; and that the CHVs should be accordingly made permanent based on their continuous service and paid remuneration commensurate with the number of hours put in by them on par with other parttime permanent workmen of the Corporation.

2.5 Upon failure of conciliation, the Commissioner of Labour referred that industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai (“Tribunal”) for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). Both parties, i.e. the Petitioner and the Corporation, filed their respective statement of claim and written statement.

2.6 On or about 2 March 2002, the Tribunal, after allowing the parties to lead evidence and hearing them, passed a Part I Award on the preliminary issue of the status of the CHVs, holding them to be workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

2.7 The Corporation challenged the Part I Award before this Court by Writ Petition No.4027 of 2002. That Writ Petition, however, was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the Part I Award after the final award, if adverse to the Corporation.

2.8 The Tribunal, thereafter, proc