Lack of sanctioned posts prohibits regularization claims for employees working over 240 days, emphasizing adherence to proper appointment procedures under labor law.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. All these petitions give rise to identical questions of law and the facts of the petitions are almost similar, therefore, the petitions are being decided by a common judgment. For the purpose of convenience, facts of writ petition No.4722 of 2025 will be taken into consideration.

3. Petitioners are original respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondents are original complainant. Petitioners will be referred as, “NMC” and the respondent No.1 as, “complainant” for the sake of brevity.

4. Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.4722 of 2025 had filed a complaint under Section 28 of the MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT ,1971, (hereinafter referred to as “MRTU & PULP Act” for the purpose of brevity), being Complaint ULP No.413 of 2015. It is the case of the complainant that he was appointed as a Safai Karmachari with NMC on the post of cleaner/sweeper w.e.f. 27.07.1993. Initially wages were paid at the rate of Rs.25/- per day. The wages were increased from time to time to Rs.294/- per day. According to the complainant he has rendered more than 240 days of service in each calendar year ever since his appointment and his working was satisfactory, clean and unblemished. The complainant raised a grievance that work of a regular employee was being extracted from him while treating him to be a substitute worker for a period of around 22 years. The complainant alleged that the NMC had indulged in unfair trade practice under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV of MRTU & PULP, Act. It is also contended that the service of complainant is governed by the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act & Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act, 1946 and Model Standing Orders (“MSO”) framed under the said Act. According to the complainant, in view of Clause 4(C) of the MSO he is entitled to the benefit of regularization in service upon completion of 240 days of work in one calendar year. The complainant has referred to resolutions dated 27.11.2015 and 21.01.2016 passed by the NMC for creation of 4,500 and odd posts of Safai Karmacharis. It is, however, stated that NMC failed to take effective steps for implementation of the said resolutions, resulting in serious hardship to the Safai Karmacharis like the complainant. Reference was also made to resolution dated 30.11.2009, whereby benefit of regularization in service was granted to certain employees who were working as Safai Karmacharis.

5. The NMC filed its written statement opposing the complaint. It raised a contention that since the complainant was not appointed by following the procedure prescribed for appointment of a regular employee, the claim of regularization made by the complainant was not tenable. The respondent also contended that there was no sanctioned post against which services of the complainant could be regularized. It is stated that the complainant was working as a substitute Safai Karmachari and was not entitled to claim benefit of regularization merely on the ground that he had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year. The NMC also contended that Model Standing Orders are not applicable since it has its own Certified Standing Orders. It is contended that apart from Certified Standing Orders, service conditions are also governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981. Lastly, the NMC raised a contention that the State Government had granted approval for creation of 4407 supernumerary posts of Safai Karmacharis and pursuant to the said Government Resolution, appointment order dated 28.02.2020 was issued in favour of the complainant on a supernumerary post as a regular employee. It is stated that the employees are not entitled to benefit of previous service as per the said appointment order. A contention is raised that since the appointment order is accepted unconditional