Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1098 OF 2021 The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Government School Education and Sports Department and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shanta Baban Sutar Respondent /

.. Complainant WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 97082 OF 2020 The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Government School Education and Sports Department and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Dattakumar Tukaram Kamble .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Petitioners – State in both Writ Petitions.

 Mr. Nilesh Patil, Advocate for Respondent in both Writ Petitions.

......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : JUNE 24, 2025.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Kankal, learned AGP for Petitioners – State and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent.

2. This is a group of two Writ Petitions. Both the Writ Petitions are filed by the State of Maharashtra. Shanta Baban Sutar is the Respondent in Writ Petition No.1098 of 2021 who was employed as a Sweeper in the year 1998 in the office of Petitioner from 01.07.1998 to

30.09.2017. By order dated 29.09.2017 her services were terminated w.e.f. 30.09.2017.

2.1. She filed Complaint (ULP) No.61 of 2017 in the Labour Court. By order dated 23.08.2019, her complaint was allowed with a direction for her reinstatement in service with continuity in service, but with no backwages. Principal, Krida Prabodhini, Kolhapur and Deputy Director, Sport and Youth Services, Maharashtra State filed Revision Application to challenge the judgment of the Labour Court before the Industrial Court. By judgment and order dated 21.01.2020, the Industrial Court upheld the judgment of the Labour Court in Revision.

2.2. Being aggrieved, State of Maharashtra has filed the present Writ Petition No.1098 of 2021 to challenge the concurrent orders passed by the Labour Court dated 23.08.2019 and the Industrial Court dated 21.01.2020.

3. Similarly, Dattakumar Tukaram Kamble is Respondent in Writ Petition (St.) No.97082 of 2020. He was appointed as a Accounts Clerk on 21.08.1998 in the office of Petitioner. On 20.09.2001, he was promoted as a Hostel Rector and on 01.06.2002; he was again transferred back to the post of Junior Clerk on 07.06.2006; he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and since then he was in continuous and uninterrupted service upto 30.09.2017 with the Petitioners. By termination order dated 29.09.2017, his services were terminated w.e.f. 30.09.2017.

3.1. He filed Complaint (ULP) No.59 of 2017 in the Labour Court. By order dated 23.08.2019, his complaint was allowed with a direction for his reinstatement in service with continuity in service, but with no backwages. Principal, Krida Prabodhini, Kolhapur and Deputy Director, Sport & Youth Services, Maharashtra State filed Revision Application to challenge the judgment of the Labour Court before the Industrial Court. By judgment and order dated 21.01.2020, the Industrial Court upheld the judgment of the Labour Court in Revision.

3.2. Being aggrieved, State of Maharashtra has filed the present Writ Petition (St.) No.97082 of 2020 to challenge the concurrent orders passed by the Labour Court dated 23.08.2019 and the Industrial Court dated 21.01.2020.

4. In view of the identical facts regarding employment of the aforesaid employees in the services of the same Respondent, both Writ Petitions are heard together and are disposed by this common judgment and order.

5. Mr. Kankal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra would submit that both employees were appointed in the office of Krida Prabodhini, Kolhapur, Chhatrapati Shivaji Stadium, Khasbag, Kolhapur. He would submit that Krida Prabodhini is a venture of the State Government which is not to be equated as an industry or for that matter, the Sports Department of the Government. He would submit that both the employees were appointed on temporary posts on daily wage casual basis, however their employment was continued for 20 year