Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of High Court in Service Matters: The High Court held that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, it was not permissible to direct regularization unless the appointment process followed constitutional principles and statutory rules. The Court reaffirmed that Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 does not restrict courts from regularizing employees whose appointments were "irregular" but not "illegal"​.

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Section 28 – Item 6 of Schedule IV:  The Industrial Court held that non-regularization of Badli workers despite the availability of posts amounted to unfair labour practice. It was found that the seniority list and suitability of employees had already been considered, and they were entitled to regularization​.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Writ Jurisdiction: The Tribunal’s judgment dated 14/02/2022, directing regularization, was challenged by the State, arguing that the employees lacked the requisite tenure under the Government Resolution dated 07/12/2015. The High Court rejected the contention that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and upheld the finality of the Industrial Court’s 2003 decision​.

Held – The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order and ruled that the State's failure to regularize the respondents despite a binding adjudication amounted to unfair labour practice. The challenge to the Industrial Court's 2003 decision was held to be barred, and the workers were entitled to permanent status in proportion to the available posts​.

Issues

1. Whether the Industrial Court’s direction for regularization attained finality, barring further challenge?
2. Whether Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 prohibited regularization of Badli workers whose appointments were irregular but not illegal?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Industrial Court’s findings despite the Government Resolution imposing restrictions on regularization?

Subjects:

Regularization – Unfair Labour Practice – Industrial Court Finality – Writ Jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi:

a. Uma Devi (supra) distinguished between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments – the latter can be regularized if certain conditions are met.
b. Once adjudication attains finality, denial of benefits amounts to unfair labour practice.
c. Government Resolution cannot override a judicial determination of rights in service matters​.