Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 120
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
THE CIVIL SURGEON CIVIL HOSPITAL SATARA and ANR. – Appellant
Versus
DHANASHRI BHARAT SANKPAL – Respondent
WP/8421/2003
Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for State-Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Desai, for Respondents.
Completion of 240 days of service does not automatically entitle temporary employees to permanency without a proper selection process, as per constitutional mandates.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 28 - Challenge to Industrial Court's order granting permanency to temporary employees - The State Government contested the Industrial Court's ruling that directed the continuation of services and permanency for employees appointed temporarily without a selection process. The Court found that the appointments were irregular and did not confer rights to permanency. (Paras 1, 8, 34)
(B) Employment Law - Regularization of Temporary Employees - The Court emphasized that mere completion of 240 days of service does not automatically entitle temporary employees to claim permanency, especially when appointments were made without following due process. (Paras 19, 21, 34)
(C) Unfair Labour Practices - The Court held that the actions of the State in making temporary appointments without a selection process constituted unfair labour practices, but did not justify the grant of permanency. (Paras 12, 34)
Facts of the case:
The State Government challenged the Industrial Court's order that directed the continuation and permanency of employees who were temporarily appointed without a selection process. The employees had worked for a short duration and claimed permanency based on their service duration.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Industrial Court erred in granting permanency as the appointments were irregular and did not follow the constitutional requirements for public employment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Industrial Court could grant permanency to employees who were appointed temporarily without a selection process and whether the completion of 240 days of service entitled them to such rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Industrial Court's decision was erroneous as it failed to consider the lack of a proper selection process and the nature of the appointments, which were temporary and irregular.
Result: The petitions were allowed, and the Industrial Court's order was set aside.
A. THE CHALLENGE
1) The State Government has filed these eight petitions through the Medical Superintendents/Civil Surgeons of respective Hospitals and Deputy Director of Health Services, Pune challenging the common Judgment and Order dated 19 June 2022 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Satara in eight Complaints filed by Respondents alleging unfair labour practices in the matter of their temporary appointments in various hospitals. The Industrial Court has directed continuation of services of Respondents with further directions to grant of benefit of permanency to them. B. FACTS
2) Briefly stated, facts involved in these eight petitions are that the State Government through its Health Department has set up various rural and other hospitals for providing healthcare related services. It appears that some para-medical, clerical and Class-IV posts were lying vacant in those ___Page No. of ___ 26 June 2024 hospitals due to variety of reasons such as not availability of regular employee, promotion of regular employee, deputation of regular employee for training, absence/leave of regular employee, etc. In the above background, it appears that Petitioner No.2-Deputy Director of Health Services, Pune entertained direct applications made by various candidates seeking their appointments during the years 2000-2001. It appears that Respondents accordingly submitted direct applications for appointment on various posts such as Junior Typist, Laboratory Technician and on various Class-IV posts such as Sweeper. It appears that the concerned hospitals were in need of staff. It appears that some of the posts in those Hospitals were being manned by temporary employees and the Medical Superintendent of the concerned Hospitals had made correspondence with Petitioner No.2 for deployment of fresh staff on vacant posts. This is how applications made by Respondents were entertained by Petitioner No.2 and they came to be granted temporary appointments on various posts such as Junior Clerk, Laboratory Technician, Pharmacist, sweeper, etc for a period of three months by various orders issued in the year 2000/2001. The appointment for three months was by giving break of one day at interval of 29 days.
3) It appears that though initially appointments were made only for a period of 3 months, the same were continued on 2/3 occasions by issuing fresh appointment orders for further period of three months. The employees submitted undertakings in September 2001 accepting temporary nature of their appointments. When their services were discontinued either on availability of regular employees or otherwise, Respondents approached Industrial Court, Satara by filing eight Complaints (bearing Nos. 142/2001, 143/2001, 144/2001, 145/2001, 246/2001,154/2001, 1/2002 and 20/2002) ___Page No. of ___ 26 June 2024 under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) seeking continuation of their appointments and claiming permanency. Industrial Court granted interim orders in favour of Respondents, on account of which their appointments were continued by issuing fresh appointment orders. This is how Respondents continued to work during pendency of their Complaints. The Complaints were resisted by Petitioners by filing Written Statement. Both the sides led evidence.
4) The Industrial Court proceeded to allow the Complaints filed by the Respondents by common judgment and order dated 19 June 2002 and directed that services of the Respondents be continued with further direction to grant them the benefit of permanency after completing the necessary procedure. Petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the common judgment and order dated 19 June 2002 passed by the Industrial Court. By orders passed on 9 March 2004, six of the present Petitions came to be admitted by refusing interim relief. By Orders dated 23 March 2004 and 7 June 2004, the other two Petition also came to be admitted by t
