Case Note & Summary
The State Government filed eight petitions challenging a common judgment of the Industrial Court, Satara, which had directed continuation of services and grant of permanency to respondents who were temporarily appointed in various government hospitals. The respondents were appointed in 2000-2001 for three-month periods with breaks, without any selection process, to fill vacant posts due to leave, training, or promotion of regular employees. They filed complaints under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints, directing permanency. The High Court examined whether such directions were permissible. The petitioners argued that the appointments were temporary, back door, and without selection, relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which prohibits regularisation of irregularly appointed employees. The respondents contended that they worked for over 24 years and deserved regularisation, citing Hari Nandan Prasad v. FCI (2014) 7 SCC 190. The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in granting permanency, as the respondents were not appointed through a regular selection process and were back door entrants. The court emphasized that government service appointments must follow constitutional principles, and the Model Standing Orders cannot override this requirement. The petitions were allowed, and the Industrial Court's order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Temporary Appointments - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - Section 28 - The Industrial Court directed continuation and permanency of temporary employees appointed without selection process. The High Court held that such back door entrants cannot claim permanency, as their initial appointment was irregular and not through a regular process. The court set aside the Industrial Court's order, relying on Uma Devi and Municipal Council, Tirora. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Permanency - Model Standing Orders - Clause 4C - The High Court held that Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders cannot be invoked to claim permanency in government service, as government appointments must follow constitutional requirements. Mere completion of 240 days does not entitle temporary employees to permanency. (Paras 6, 10) C) Service Law - Regularisation - Back Door Entry - The court held that employees who entered service without any selection process are back door entrants and cannot be regularised merely because they worked for a long period. Sympathy cannot override the requirement of a fair and transparent selection process. (Paras 6, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could direct continuation of services and grant of permanency to temporary employees appointed without following regular selection process, in light of the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and subsequent decisions.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petitions, set aside the common judgment and order dated 19 June 2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Satara, and dismissed the complaints filed by the respondents.
Law Points
- Temporary government employees cannot claim permanency under MRTU & PULP Act if initial appointment was irregular and without selection process
- Uma Devi principles apply to government service
- Model Standing Orders do not override constitutional requirements for public employment
