2026:BHC-AS:20034-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.151 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1727 OF 2007

1. Dhanraj R.Mahale, R/o.Ganesh Chowk, CIDCO, Nashik-9.

2. Sambhaji Sahabrao Bhosale, since deceased, through L.Rs.

2A. Alkabai Sambhaji Bhosale, Age 40 years, 2B. Madhuri Sambhaji Bhosale, Age 21 years, 2C. Chandrakant Sambhaji Bhosale, Age 19 years, R/o.Ashoknagar, Satpur, Nashik.

3. Rajendra B.Khairnar, R/o.N-52, BE-36/1, New CIDCO, Sinhasthanagar, Swadhyay Chowk, CIDCO, Nashik.

4. Rajesh Baburao More, R/o.Type A/2096, HAL Township, Ozar, Tal.Niphad, Dist.Nashik. Appellants versus

1. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd (Valve Plant), Plot No.A/11, MIDC, Ambad, Nashik.

2. The Member, Industrial Court, Nashik. Respondents _______

Mr.Bhavesh Parmar with Ms.Reshma Nair, Devmani Shukla i/by Devmani Shukla for Appellants.

Mr.Neel Helekar with Mr.Atman Mehta & Vipul Patel i/by Haresh Mehta & Co.

for Respondent no.1.

Ms.Shruti Vyas, Additional Govt.Pleader with Ms.Savita Prabhune, AGP, for Respondent-State.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

Digitally signed by Date of Reserving the Judgment : 6^th March 2026 MANISH MANISH S TH UR AT E T S E HRAO S T D H U at R A e T E : T S 2 E 0 H 2 R 6 A .0 O 4.27 Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 27^th April 2026 JUDGMENT - (Aarti Sathe, J.) :-

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21^st April 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1727 of 2007, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants on the ground that in view of Rule 32 of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Model Standing Orders), the provisions of Clause 4A of Schedule-I stood excluded, and hence the Appellants were not entitled to be continued in regular service post their probation period.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows: -

(i) The Appellants were employees of the Respondent Company before they were terminated. Appellant No.1 was appointed on 9^th September 1996 on PMB machine to do the work of copy turning as an operator. Appellant No.1 was initially appointed as a trainee on 9^th September 1996. Thereafter, Appellant No.1 was given temporary appointment on 9^th September 1997, and post the temporary appointment, Appellant No. 1 was thereafter placed on probation with effect from 1^st March 1998. Ultimately, Appellant No. 1’s services came to be terminated on

31^st August 1999 by the Respondent Company;

(ii) Appellant No.2 was appointed on 12^th March 1996 on fricture welding machine as an operator. Appellant No. 2 was initially appointed as a trainee on 12^th March 1996, and thereafter Appellant No. 2 was given a temporary appointment on 13^th March 1997. Appellant No.2 was thereafter placed on probation with effect from 1^st September 1997, and was given an extension of probation with effect from 28^th February 1998. Ultimately, Appellant No.2's services came to be terminated on 31^st August 1999 by the Respondent Company;

(iii) Appellant No. 3 was appointed on 17^th June 1996 on a PMB machine to do the work of copy turning as an operator. Appellant No. 3 was initially appointed as a trainee on 17^th June 1996, and thereafter Appellant No. 3 was given temporary appointment on 1^st July 1997. Appellant No. 3 was thereafter placed on probation with effect from 1^st January 1999, and ultimately Appellant No. 3's services came to be terminated on 30^th June 1998 by the Respondent Company;

(iv) Similarly, Appellant No. 4 was also appointed as a fricture welding machine as an operator on 5^th August 1996. He was initially appointed as a trainee on 5^th August 1996, and was given a temporary appointment on 1^st August 1997. He was thereafter placed on probation with effect from 1^st February 1998, and ultimately his services were terminated on 31^st July 1998;

(v) Being aggrieved by the termination made by the Respondent Compa