Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351132

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

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash Jalisatgi, T.R. Yadav, Mulanshu Vora
For the Respondents: B.K. Barve, Sandeep Barve, Anushka Barve, Simmy Sebatin

An institution performing commercial or profit-generating activities, even alongside sovereign functions, qualifies as an industry. Consequently, casual employees who have served for over 240 days are protected by law, and their termination without statutory notice or compensation is illegal.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(j), 2(s), and 25-F - Scope of 'Industry' - Definition of 'Workman' - Retrenchment of daily-wage employee - Applicability of sovereign function exception - Where an institution performs commercial activities such as vocational training for third-party agencies and operates ancillary facilities for fees, the entity qualifies as an 'industry' - Termination of a workman who has completed more than 240 days of continuous service without notice or retrenchment compensation is illegal - Fairness and transparency in public employment are constitutional imperatives. (Paras 9, 15, 16, 19)

(B) Administrative Law - Constitutional Employer - Duty to regularize personnel performing perennial tasks on sanctioned posts - Prohibition against perpetuating precarious employment to avoid statutory obligations - Requirement of reasoned decision-making for public institutions. (Paras 17, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
A public training academy challenged the industrial court's judgment regarding the termination of a computer operator. The operator was employed on a daily-wage basis and worked continuously for nearly eight years. The academy terminated her services without providing notice, conducting an inquiry, or paying retrenchment compensation, claiming it was a non-industry entity performing sovereign functions.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the entity, while performing sovereign training functions, also generated revenue through fees from private security agencies and the operation of public facilities, thereby losing its exclusive claim to sovereign immunity. The termination was held to be illegal for non-compliance with statutory conditions for retrenchment, mandating immediate reinstatement and back wages.

Issues: The main issues were whether the public academy qualified as an 'industry' under the prevailing labor laws and whether the summary termination of a long-term daily-wage worker without statutory compliance was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that an organization's status as an 'industry' is determined by the nature of its activities; if it engages in commercial or systematic service-oriented tasks for fees, it cannot claim sovereign exemption. Furthermore, the state as a constitutional employer must maintain transparency and adhere to mandatory retrenchment protocols for workers employed in perennial functions.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of appointment, termination, and procedural legal history. (Para 2 , 3)
2. parties debate institutional status and applicability of industrial disputes act. (Para 4 , 5)
3. determination of workman status based on continuous service and nature of duties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. institutions charging fees for services qualify as industry under id act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. retrenchment without compliance with section 25f is illegal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. final orders upholding reinstatement and continuity of service. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Jalisatgi, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Barve, learned Advocate for Respondent.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner challenging Judgment 09.05.2025 passed by Industrial Court, Nasik in Revision Application (ULP) No.13 of 2024. The Judgment dated 09.05.2025 is appended below Exhibit ‘P’ below at page no. - 271.

3. Briefly stated, Petitioner – Academy was established by State Government to train freshly recruited as well as serving police officers of all ranks in accordance with Rules and manuals notified by the State Government from time to time. On 01.09.2010 Petitioner appointed Respondent as a Computer Operator temporarily on a daily wage basis and issued her an appointment letter. On 05.02.2016 a Government Resolution notified by Home Department granted autonomy to Petitioner, directed its registration under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and approved Memorandum of Association and Rules. On 01.04.2016 Petitioner duly registered itself under Society Registration Act, 1860 and on 05.05.2016 under Bombay Public Trusts, 1950.

3.1. On 27/09/2016 Petitioner resolved to fill in vacant posts of Chief Clerk, Higher Grade Stenographer and Lower Grade Stenographer and in case those posts are filled by temporary daily wage employees then they are to be permanently appointed and their salaries be fixed according to pay scale.

3.2. Respondent orally requested Petitioners to regularise her appointment but to no avail. On 21.12.2017 Respondent addressed a letter to Petitioners seeking permanent appointment as she worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year for nearly 8 years however she received no response. On 11.01.2018, Petitioners terminated the services of Respondent without notice or retrenchment compensation nor did they publish any seniority list before they terminated her services and retained services of junior employees.

3.3. Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 6 of 2018 under Section 28 read with Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU & PULP Act”) challenging the termination of her services and seeking reinstatement and continuity of service with full back wages. The complaint came to be allowed by Judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed Revision Application No. 8 of 2022 in the Industrial Court, Nasik which was allowed by judgment dated 18.01.2024 remanding the complaint back to Labour Court. On 19.03.2024, Labour Court once again allowed the complaint, against which Petitioners filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 13 of 2024 which came to be dismissed by order dated 09.05.2025. Hence the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr. Jalisatgi, learned advocate for Petitioners would submit Petitioner – Academy was established in 1906 under Indian Police Act, 1861 nomenclatured as Central Police Training School and was subsequently renamed to Maharashtra Police Academy in 1989 by State Government. He would submit that Petitioner – Academy is part of the Police establishment performing sovereign and statutory functions i.e. to impart training to freshly recruited as well as serving police officers. He would submit that Petitioner – Academy is funded by and under the control of State Government and that its Chairman, Deputy Chair

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351132

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYMilind N. Jadhav, JMaharashtra Police Academy – AppellantVersusBharati Yashwant Salve – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 9690 OF 2025

An institution performing commercial or profit-generating activities, even alongside sovereign functions, qualifies as an industry. Consequently, casual employees who have served for over 240 days are protected by law, and their termination without statutory notice or compensation is illegal.

Cases Referred (3)

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