JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J. 

1. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in all the present writ petitions, the same are being decided and disposed of by this common Judgment and Order. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, Writ Petition No. 14928 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter, and the facts pleaded therein are referred to for the purpose of adjudication of the present group of petitions.

2. By these writ petitions instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the legality, correctness, and propriety of the Judgment and Award dated 30 May 2024 rendered by the learned Labour Court, Pune, in the respective references preferred by the petitioners.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute questioning the legality of the termination of his services effected by the respondent by order dated 19 March 2011. The Appropriate Government, upon being satisfied about the existence of an industrial dispute within the meaning of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, made a reference for adjudication to the Labour Court at Pune. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Labour Court in the said reference proceedings, the petitioner appeared and filed his Statement of Claim setting out the factual and legal basis of his challenge.

4. In the Statement of Claim, the petitioner pleaded that he was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on 24 March 2008 pursuant to an advertisement published in the daily newspaper “Dainik Lokmat” dated 25 September 2005 inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). According to the petitioner, he possessed the requisite educational qualifications and had accordingly participated in the selection process comprising a written examination and interview. It was his case that though he was not initially selected, his name was included in the waiting list prepared by the respondent. Subsequently, on account of availability of work in the Heritage and JNNURM Departments, the petitioner came to be offered appointment on the basis of his merit position in the waiting list. The petitioner relied upon the office note dated 10 March 2008 pursuant to which he was appointed, and further contended that Resolution No. 266 dated 27 May 2008 was thereafter passed recognizing and approving such appointment.

5. The petitioner further contended that he was continued in service by issuance of temporary appointment orders for fixed periods of six months from time to time with an intention to deprive him of the benefits attached to permanent employment. According to the petitioner, though in substance he was discharging regular and perennial duties, the respondent sought to describe his employment as contractual under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, while at the same time attempting to claim protection under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to exclude the termination from the ambit of retrenchment.

6. It was further the case of the petitioner that he had rendered continuous service for more than 240 days. On that basis, along with other similarly situated employees, the petitioner instituted a complaint alleging commission of Unfair Labour Practice before the Industrial Court at Pune under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, inter alia seeking conferment of permanency under Clause 4(C) of the Model Standing Orders. In the said complaint, a specific contention was raised that out of 283 sanctioned posts of Junior Engineers, 34 posts were lying vacant and that 22 junior employees had already been granted permanency, whereas similar treatment was denied to the petitioner without any justifiable basis.

7. During the pendency of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner also moved an application seeking interim relief. The Industrial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the material