Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ROHIT W.JOSHI
Subhash s/o Sukhdev Sahare – Appellant
Versus
Nagpur Municipal Corporation Civil Lines, Nagpur Through its Municipal Commissioner – Respondent
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 t
Lack of sanctioned posts prohibits regularization claims for employees working over 240 days, emphasizing adherence to proper appointment procedures under labor law.
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....
Long-term service and performance of duties similar to regular employees justify the regularization of daily wage workers, regardless of initial irregular appointment procedures.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment of daily wagers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, necessitating their regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The obligation of the employer to regularise the service of workmen and the prohibition against unfair labour practices under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
The court established that unequal treatment in employment regularization, despite available posts, constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court upheld the Tribunal's order for regularization of workers, finding the Municipality's prolonged employment practices constituted unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court upheld the Tribunal's order for regularization of employees, citing unfair labor practices by the Municipality in retaining them on temporary wages despite available posts.
Employees engaged in irregular appointments may be entitled to regularisation if they have served continuously and their appointments were not illegal.
The obligation of the employer to accommodate the workman, the power of the Labour Court to grant relief, and the legal principles related to unfair labour practices and regularisation.
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
