Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5919
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J
Pradip Ramesh Shinde – Appellant
Versus
Malegaon Municipal Corporation – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 7949 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 8004 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 7951 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 7954 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pavitra Manesh
For the Respondents: S.S. Patwardhan
Financial constraints do not justify perpetuating precarious employment for essential, perennial work. Treating long-term employees as indefinite temporary staff while denying them permanency violates principles of fairness and constitutes an unfair labour practice, requiring courts to intervene to uphold constitutional mandates against arbitrary state action.
Headnote:(A) MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Schedule IV, Items 6, 9, 10 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Employment and recruitment - Regularisation - Unfair Labour Practice - State action - Principles of dignity and equality.
(B) The state as a model employer cannot maintain precarious employment for long periods by creating artificial service breaks. Permanency cannot be denied solely on grounds of financial constraints or internal staffing limits when the work performed is of a perennial and essential nature. The usage of temporary labels to evade long-term obligations constitutes an unfair labour practice. (Paras 12, 14, 17, 24)
Facts of the case:
Several employees were engaged on daily wages for over nine years to perform essential and perennial duties. Despite working alongside permanent staff, their service was continued via intermittent appointment orders to create artificial breaks. Their complaints seeking permanent status were dismissed by the lower court based on claims of budgetary constraints and absence of sanctioned posts. Subsequently, their services were terminated during the pendency of legal challenges.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the employer could not evade the fundamental obligation of regularisation by citing financial constraints or staffing limits when the work is perennial and the employees have served for nearly a decade. The termination of the employees while the matter was sub-judice was held to be arbitrary and unjustified.
Issues: The main issues were whether long-term contractual employees performing essential duties are entitled to the status of permanency, and whether financial or staffing limitations serve as a valid defense against the claim of unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that financial stringency does not override constitutional obligations of fairness. Long-term reliance on temporary workers to perform core, essential functions, while denying them permanent status, violates the mandate of equality and constitutes an unfair labour practice, permitting the court to grant relief despite executive claims of administrative or financial barriers.
Result: Petitions allowed; impugned judgments and termination orders quashed; reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and undisputed employment facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contrasting arguments on exploitation versus financial/administrative constraints. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. courts find long-term temporary employment as exploitation of labor. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. application of precedents (dharam singh/umadevi) prohibits perpetual ad-hocism. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. court quashes terminations and orders immediate reinstatement with benefits. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Ms. Manesh, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for Respondent - Corporation.
2. This is a group of four Writ Petitions which are decided by this common judgment. By consent of parties, Writ Petitions are heard and disposed of finally. Facts are almost identical in all four cases concerning Petitioners - Employees and Respondent - Malegaon Municipal Corporation (for short 'the said Corporation').
3. Facts in Writ Petition No.7949 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.8004 of 2025 concerning Pradip Ramesh Shinde and Bhushan Suresh Thakre, who were both appointed as Driver on daily wages by appointment order dated 27.02.2017 are identical.
4. Facts in Writ Petition No.7951 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.7954 of 2025 concerning Sunil Ananda Bagul and Sheikh Javid Sheikh Rashid, who were both appointed as Firemen on daily wages by appointment order dated 07.04.2017 are identical.
5. Save and except the aforesaid distinction, all other facts are absolutely identical right upto filing of the present Writ Petitions by Petitioners. Hence for the sake of brevity detailed facts in the case of Writ Petition No.7949 of 2025 shall be referred to and relied upon in this judgment. Pursuant thereto the distinct facts pertaining to the remaining three Petitions shall also be adhered to, if so required.
6. Brief facts pertaining to appointment of Petitioners either as Driver or Firemen on and from 2017 onwards leading to filing Complaint (ULP) No.35 of 2019, continuation of the Petitioners in services of Corporation and subsequent dismissal of their ULP Complaints and subsequent termination of Petitioners by order dated 02.07.2025 despite pendency of the present Writ Petitions are as under:-
6.1. Petitioners namely Pradip Ramesh Shinde and Bhushan Suresh Thakre were appointed as Driver in the services of the Corporation by appointment order dated 27.02.2017 for a period of six months with effect from 01.03.2017 to 31.08.2017 on payment of Rs.7,000/- per month stipulating various conditions. There is no dispute about the fact that since then these Petitioners have continued working with the Corporation continuously as Driver until their services were terminated on 02.07.2025. Their services were thereafter extended and continued by further appointment orders dated 11.01.2019 and 06.01.2020 for period six months at a time with increased salary @ Rs.8,000/- per month.
6.2. Record also indicates and finding are returned by the learned Industrial Court that right from date of their initial appointment i.e. 27.02.2017 services of Petitioners were continued all throughout by issuance of appointment orders intermittently after every six months until Petitioners filed ULP Complaints before Industrial Court in the year 2019 seeking permanency in service. There is no dispute about this fact which is also an admitted fact which is not denied in the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Corporation in the above cases. Affidavit-in-Reply shall be adverted to while recording the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Corporation.
6.3. The ULP Complaint as filed by Petitioners was decided at interim stage by order dated 04.11.2019 whereby the learned Industrial Court arrived at an affirmative finding on prima facie case made out by Petitioners observing that appointment of Petitioners was on the basis of four appointment orders viz. 27.02.2017; 18.09.2017; 11.01
