Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
The Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corporation, Nashik – Appellant
Versus
Tulashiram Rama Khutade – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 233 of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 436 of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 207 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7436 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 446 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 214 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 448 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 235 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7656 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 215 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7453 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 236 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7445 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 237 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 421 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 238 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 418 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 239 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7663 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 240 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7665 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 241 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7666 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 242 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7658 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 243 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7659 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 244 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7664 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 245 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 413 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 246 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7441 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 247 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 428 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 248 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7437 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 249 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 458 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 250 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 432 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 251 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 454 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 252 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 440 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 253 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7452 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 254 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7667 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 255 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7444 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 434 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 257 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 453 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 258 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No.412 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 259 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 416 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 234 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 439 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 426 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 260 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7455 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 261 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7451 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 262 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No 7440 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 263 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 414 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 264 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 427 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 265 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7430 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 266 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7448 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 267 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7653 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 282 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 435 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 268 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7428 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 269 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7655 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 270 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7671 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 271 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 420 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 272 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7439 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 289 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7438 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 290 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 455 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 291 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7672 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 295 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7661 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 296 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7657 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 297 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7660 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 298 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7446 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 299 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 425 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 300 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7435 Of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 301 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 429 Of 2001 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 302 Of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 7662 Of 2000
Decided On : 24-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case involving unfair labor practices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding appointments and claims for regularization. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis on continuous service and public employment principles. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal requirements for regularization of employment based on service duration. (Para 17 , 20 , 24) |
| 5. final order directing benefits to the respondents within specified timeline. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. This batch of Letters Patent Appeals assails a common judgment and order dated 13 June 2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge on a clutch of petitions, hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. At the outset, we need to observe that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge confirms the orders passed by the Industrial Court. Hence, the concurrent findings of the Courts against the appellant is the subject matter of consideration in these appeals.
2. The facts are identical, insofar as all these writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge are concerned, except that the respondents/employees in the respective writ petitions were appointed by the appellant as watchmen on different dates. There is no dispute in regard to the dates of their appointment and in fact, a seniority list of all the appointees was prepared and placed on record before the Industrial Court as also the learned Single Judge.
3. The common appellant in all these appeals namely the Forest Development Corporation Ltd., is the original petitioner, in the writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a Corporation/an entity formed by the State of Maharashtra and is fully within its control as the law would recognize including the same to be a ‘State’ within the meaning and purview of Article 12 of the Constitution.
4. The genesis of the present proceedings arises from the ninety nine complains filed under Section 28 of the The MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT , 1971 (for short, “MRTU & PULP Act’) by the respondents before the Industrial Court at Nashik alleging that the appellant had indulged in unfair labour practices against the respondents under Item 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The respondents were appointed by the appellant as watchmen. Such appointments, which are not in dispute, were during the period from the year 1977 to 1992. The relevant facts in regard to the dates of appointments, the details of joining date, period of working days etc. as also the inter se seniority of the respective respondents as placed on record of the Industrial Court are not in dispute.
5. The respondents’ case before the Industrial Court, in alleging unfair labour practices was to the effect that the respondents were working with the appellant without any break in service since from the respective dates of joining service with the appellant, and had completed more than 240 days “year after year”, hence, the appellant was under an obligation to regularize the services of the respondents having completed more than 240 days, being engaged on daily wages for ‘years together’. The respondents contended that considering the settled position in law, they were entitled to the benefits of permanency and the benefits which are given to the permanent employees of the appellant. It is also contended that the work in question being awarded to the respondents was permanent and perennial, however, the respondents were not being absorbed in the permanent employment, with an intention to deprive them the status and benefits of permanency
6. The appellant opposed each of the complaints by filing written statements. The case of the appellant basically was of denial. It was the appellant’s case that the appellant was registered under the Companies Act and it was under the full control of the Maharashtra Government, he
Long-term engagement of employees for over 240 days establishes entitlement to regularization, reinforcing the principle against unfair labor practices applicable to public sector employment.
The court's decision established that when temporary or ad-hoc appointments are continued for a long period of time, the Court has to presume that there is a regular need for service on regular posts....
The judgment emphasizes the statutory rights of industrial workers and the prohibition of unfair labour practices under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Prolonged continuous service of employees necessitates regularization irrespective of absence of sanctioned posts, reinforcing the obligation of fair employment practices by the state.
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
