Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
The Chief Officer, Alibag Municipal Council & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Mamta N. Patil & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3983 of 2007 Alongwith Writ Petition No. 1340 of 2005 Alongwith Writ Petition No. 1366 of 2005
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Regularization - Employment Dispute - Industrial Employment (Model Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - 4.C - The judgment discusses the entitlement of employees for regularization of their services on the basis of past daily wage/temporary services rendered by them. The court considered the provisions of Model Standing Order 4C and the powers and jurisdiction of an industrial adjudicator to grant regularization. It also referred to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the exceptions carved out in Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and another, (2014) 7 SCC 190. The court held that the Industrial Court could not have ordered regularization by taking recourse to Model Standing Order 4C, but the relief of regularization was otherwise grantable to the employees in view of the mandate of the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi as irregular appointments initially made in 1993 continued on sanctioned vacant posts for more than 10 years. Therefore, the orders passed by the Industrial Court directing regularization of services of the employees w.e.f. 1 February 2001 need not be disturbed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three employees who were initially engaged as Badli Safai Kamgars on daily wages and continued to work uninterruptedly as daily wage workers. The Municipal Council adopted a resolution to regularize the services of the employees, but the proposal was rejected by the Director of Municipal Administration. The Municipal Council terminated the services of the employees, but they were reinstated on daily wage basis. The employees approached the Industrial Court, which directed the Municipal Council to confer status and privileges of permanency to the employees and pay them all consequential benefits. The Municipal Council challenged the Industrial Court's decision by filing petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Industrial Court could not have ordered regularization by taking recourse to Model Standing Order 4C, but the relief of regularization was otherwise grantable to the employees in view of the mandate of the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi as irregular appointments initially made in 1993 continued on sanctioned vacant posts for more than 10 years. Therefore, the orders passed by the Industrial Court directing regularization of services of the employees w.e.f. 1 February 2001 need not be disturbed.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the employees for regularization of their services and the legality of the Industrial Court's decision in granting the relief of permanency to the employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Industrial Court could not have ordered regularization by taking recourse to Model Standing Order 4C, but the relief of regularization was otherwise grantable to the employees in view of the mandate of the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi as irregular appointments initially made in 1993 continued on sanctioned vacant posts for more than 10 years.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petitions and held that the orders passed by the Industrial Court directing regularization of services of the employees w.e.f. 1 February 2001 need not be disturbed. The amount deposited in the Court in Writ Petition No. 3983 of 2007 along with accrued interest shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the Respondent therein.
JUDGMENT :
1. These three petitions challenge the Judgments and Orders dated 11 January 2005 and 16 October 2006 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 135/137 of 2001 and Complaint (ULP) No. 136 of 2001 respectively. The Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner-Municipal Council to confer the status and privileges of permanent employees on the Complainants before it on the post of Safai Kamgar w.e.f. 1 February 2001 and to pay them all the consequential benefits. Unfortunately, all the Complainants before the Industrial Court have expired and the present petitions are being defended by their legal heirs.
2. Petitioner is a Municipal Council established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Three employees viz. Shri. Nandkumar Eknath Patil, Shri. Hareshwar Krushna Patil and Shri. Darshan Atmaram Mhatre (employees) were initially engaged in the Municipal Council as Badli Safai Kamgars on daily wages w.e.f. 25 May 1993. They continued to work uninterruptedly as daily wage workers upto 31 March 1997. It appears that some regular posts were created in the Municipal Council including 4 posts Safai Kamgars in the year 1997. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation therefore adopted a resolution to regularize the services of the employees w.e.f. 1st April 1997. Accordingly orders were issued on 21 March 1997 granting temporary appointments to the employees in the pay-scales w.e.f. 1 April 1997. It appears that a proposal was sent by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to the Director of Municipal Administration for regularizing appointments of various employees on 13 sanctioned posts. The Director however rejected the proposal vide Order dated 18 January 2001. The Municipal Council therefore terminated the services of the employees on 30 January 2001. However, on 1 February 2001, they were reinstated. However, their reinstatement was made on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.78/- per day by withdrawing the pay scales granted to them vide Order dated 21 March 1997.
3. The employees approached the Industrial Court by filing Complaint (ULP) Nos. 135 to 137 of 2001. By Order dated 9 July 2001, the Industrial Court granted interim relief in favour of employees restraining the Petitioner from terminating their services without following due process of law. The Industrial Court further directed payment of salaries as per the Order dated 21 March 1997 by way of interim order. Petitioner challenged the interim order dated 9 July 2001 by filing Writ Petitions before this Court, which were disposed of without grant of any relief in favour of the Petitioner.
4. The Industrial Court thereafter proceeded to allow the Complaints filed by the employees. By judgment and order delivered on 11 January 2005 in Complaint (ULP) No. 135 and 137 of 2001, the Industrial Court directed Petitioner to confer status and privileges of permanency to Shri. Hareshwar Krushna Patil and Shri. Darshan Atmaram Mhatre on the post of Safai Kamgar w.e.f 1 February 2001 and to pay them all consequential benefits. The decision of Complaint (ULP) No. 136 of 2001 was delayed on account of death of employee-Nandkumar Eknath Patil during pendency of his Complaint, which was later prosecuted by his wife. In Complaint (ULP) No. 136 of 2001, by Judgment and Order dated 16 October 2006, the Industrial Court directed payment of monetary benefits to the widow of the employee-Nandkumar Eknath Patil by conferring status and privilege of permanent employee on the deceased complainant on the post of Safai Kamgar w.e.f. 31 January 2001. The Petitioner-Municipal Council is aggrieved by Judgments and Orders dated 11 January 2005 and 16 October 2006 of the Industrial Court and have filed the present petitions.
5. This Court admitted Writ Petitions Nos. 1340 of 2005 and 1366 of 2005 pertaining to Shri. Hareshwar Krushna Patil and Shri. Darshan Atmaram Mhatre by Order dated 26 April 2006
The court upheld the Tribunal's awards for employee regularization, emphasizing the prohibition of unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, while clarifying the need for state approv....
Service Matter - Policy decision of Government - No sufficient and cogent reasons and grounds which would enable this Court to transgress the administrative power of the State Government by undertaki....
Lack of sanctioned posts prohibits regularization claims for employees working over 240 days, emphasizing adherence to proper appointment procedures under labor law.
Unfair labour practices by the employer, failure to fill permanent posts when available, and the obligation of the employer to seek sanctioned set-up for regularisation.
Completion of 240 days of service alone does not grant entitlement to permanency in government employment without adhering to proper constitutional recruitment processes.
Unfair labour practices by the employer entitled the workman to be absorbed as a permanent employee.
The Court upheld the entitlement of a workman to regularisation based on previous decisions and the principles of unfair labour practice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
