Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH PATIL, A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Mayavati Ramchandra Sawant – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' stance on temporary nature (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents' claim for regularisation (Para 5) |
| 3. consideration of undisputed facts (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. writ petition outcome (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) passed in Original Application No.756 of 2020 dated 14/02/2022 by which the said Original Application preferred by the respondents was allowed and a direction was issued to the petitioners to regularise the services of the respondents in terms of the order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.248 of 1996 decided on 29/07/2003.
3. The petitioners in their affidavit in reply took the stand that the services rendered by the respondents were of a temporary nature and that they had not been continued in service voluntarily. It was only on account of orders passed in various proceedings that the services of the respondents were being continued. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and other Vs. Umadevi &
Employees engaged in irregular appointments may be entitled to regularisation if they have served continuously and their appointments were not illegal.
The court confirmed that permanent employment requires formal appointment procedures, and mere long service does not grant entitlement to regularisation without mandated legal protocols.
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....
Employees with over ten years of service are entitled to regularization under the approved scheme, despite arguments against retrospective application.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment of daily wagers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, necessitating their regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Continuous employment of daily rated laborers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, and they are entitled to regularization after 10 years of service, affirming the principles in ....
The court established that unequal treatment in employment regularization, despite available posts, constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Industrial Disputes Act.
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
