Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351133

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 systematic commercial activities alongside sovereign functions qualifies as an industry. Termination of a long-term daily-wage employee without complying with mandatory statutory procedural requirements for retrenchment is illegal, entitling the employee to reinstatement and back wages.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(j) and 2(s) - Definition of “Industry” - Dominant nature test - Petitioner engaged in systematic activities including training of non-governmental entities and operating fee-based facilities - Such activities qualify an institution as an “industry” despite performing other sovereign duties - (Paras 10, 14, 15)

(B) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of daily wage service without compliance with mandatory statutory procedures - Failure to provide notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25-F - Right to reinstatement and back wages for employees in continuous service beyond 240 days - (Paras 8, 9, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The respondent was engaged as clerical staff on a temporary daily wage basis for over eight years. Upon termination without notice or compensation, the respondent challenged the action in lower labour forums, claiming the dismissal was illegal under labour legislation. The establishment argued that its primary function of training law enforcement officials constituted a sovereign function, hence it did not qualify as an "industry" under the relevant statutes.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the establishment performed multiple commercial activities, including training private security agencies for fees and operating facilities like hostels and canteens, thereby satisfying the “dominant nature test” for an industry. The termination of the respondent, who had completed over 240 days of continuous service, without following the mandatory statutory provisions for retrenchment, was held to be illegal.

Issues: Whether the establishment falls under the definition of "industry" despite its role in training public servants, and whether the termination of a long-term daily-wage employee without procedural compliance warrants reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi: An entity is considered an "industry" if it performs systematic activities for the production of services or goods, irrespective of sovereign functions, provided those activities are severable and commercial in nature. A worker who has completed the prescribed threshold of continuous service cannot be retrenched without adhering to mandatory notice and compensation requirements.

Result: Writ petition dismissed; establishment directed to reinstate the employee with continuity of service, back wages, and permanency benefits.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the employment dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's contention: sovereign functions exempt institutions from 'industry' status (Para 4)
3. respondent's contention: commercial activity and violation of section 25-f retrenchment laws (Para 5)
4. determination of workman status under section 2(s) of id act (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. employer's internal resolutions confirm the need for regularization of perennial staff (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. dominant nature test determines if an institution constitutes an industry (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. mandatory compliance with section 25-f for retrenchment of long-term employees (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
8. final order granting 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 09.02.2025 passed by Industrial Court, Nasik in Revision Application (ULP) No.13 of 2024. The Judgment dated 09.02.2025 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 traini

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351133

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

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