2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351892

Milind N. Jadhav, J
Maharashtra Police Academy – Appellant
Versus
Bharati Yashwant Salve – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 9690 OF 2025

An organisation is an 'industry' if it performs systematic commercial activities despite having some sovereign functions. Long-term daily wage employees are 'workmen' entitled to protection against illegal termination; severance of their services without mandatory statutory notice or compensation constitutes an unfair labour practice.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 28, Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(j), 2(s), 2(oo), 25-F and 25-G - Termination of services - Retrenchment - Unfair labour practice - Petitioner-Academy challenged the order of the Industrial Court holding it to be an 'industry' and reinstating the respondent - Arguments regarding sovereign functions and autonomy vs. commercial activities - Court held that conducting training for private entities, charging fees for various facilities, and employing workers for perennial tasks brings the entity within the scope of the definition of industry - Respondent, having worked for more than 240 days for several years, qualifies as a workman and is protected under the law governing retrenchment - Failure to follow mandatory requirements of notice and compensation renders the termination illegal. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Power of the Court to interfere with findings of fact - Impugned orders were based on cogent evidence and well-reasoned findings - Absent any illegality or perversity, judicial interference in Labour Court and Industrial Court findings is not warranted. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The respondent was appointed on a daily wage basis and worked continuously for nearly eight years. Following a denial of requests for regularization, the respondent’s services were terminated without notice, inquiry, or retrenchment compensation. The respondent challenged the termination as an unfair labour practice. Lower forums ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the current petition by the employer.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the employer engages in systematic, profit-oriented activities such as training private security agencies and operating commercial facilities, which precludes it from asserting an absolute immunity under the sovereign function doctrine. Adherence to retrenchment procedures is mandatory for continuous, long-term workers, and the employer’s failure to comply rendered the termination invalid.

Issues: 1. Whether the employer qualifies as an 'industry' under the Act. 2. Whether the respondent qualifies as a 'workman'. 3. Whether the termination was legal and compliant with mandatory retrenchment conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A public body performing some sovereign functions cannot escape the characterization of an 'industry' if a substantial portion of its activities are commercial, systematic, and involve the production of goods or services for consideration. Constitutional employers must treat perennial workers with dignity, and termination of such long-term employees without adhering to mandatory retrenchment protocols constitutes an unfair labour practice.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed; termination set aside with directions for reinstatement and full back wages.