High Court of Bombay at Goa Considers Writ Petition Challenging Abeyance of Regularisation Orders for Daily Wage Municipal Workers. Court Examines Regularisation Process Based on Government Office Memoranda and Industrial Settlement Under Section 2(P) and Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Writ petition challenging order keeping regularisation orders of daily wage workers in abeyance and seeking implementation of appointment orders

Petitioners sought direction to Respondents to implement the appointment orders dated 02.03.2020 and to regularise their services as workers

Regularisation orders issued on 24.12.2019 were kept in abeyance by Chief Officer order dated 10.06.2020, leading to disparity in pay and denial of benefits

No previous court decisions mentioned; administrative resolutions and DPC recommendations preceded the petition

Whether the order keeping the regularisation/appointment orders in abeyance is legal and arbitrary Whether the Petitioners are entitled to regularisation based on Government Office Memoranda and settlement under Industrial Disputes Act Whether regularisation without prior advertisement violates constitutional mandate and Umadevi principles

Petitioners argued that they completed more than five years continuous service as daily wagers and were entitled to regularisation under Office Memoranda dated 29.10.1990 and 07.06.2000 and the settlement dated 08.05.2014; the Municipal Council had followed the same procedure as in 2017 and DPC recommended their regularisation Respondent No. 3 (Margao Municipal Council) supported Petitioners, admitting the settlement, the DPC process, and that advertisement was not issued but prior DPC and Selection Committee recommendation existed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (State) argued that appointment orders were invalid as vacancies were not advertised, violating constitutional mandate, and relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi to argue illegal appointments cannot be regularised

The Government vide O.M. No.9/1/90-Fin (R & C) dated 9/10/1990 from Finance ( Rev & control) Department has issued instructions to the effect that once the employee completes 5 years of continuous service as NMRs/Daily Wager, he/she would automatically qualify for being considered for regularization subject to the conditions laid down therein. It is agreed between the parties that as per the Circular No.9/58/2001-PER-Part dated 10/02/2014 received from Department of Personnel, Government of Goa it is agreed to regularize those employees/workers who are working as daily wages for five years and above. The learned Advocate General ... appointment orders are not 'valid appointment orders' as the vacancies were not advertised prior to the issuance of the appointment orders and the orders were issued in violation of the mandate of the constitution and, therefore, the appointment orders are illegal. Regularisation is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution

Petitioners appointed as daily wagers by Margao Municipal Council; Government Office Memoranda dated 29.10.1990 and 07.06.2000 provided for regularisation after five years continuous service; settlement dated 08.05.2014 under Industrial Disputes Act agreed to regularise daily wagers with five years service; Council resolved on 18.08.2014 and 19.05.2017 to recommend regularisation; DPC held on 23.07.2019 recommended regularization of 16 workers including petitioners; appointment orders issued on 24.12.2019; Department of Urban Development on 23.04.2020 directed abeyance; Chief Officer order dated 10.06.2020 kept appointments on hold; petitioners continued as daily wagers and filed writ petition challenging abeyance.

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(P), Section 18(1)
• Constitution of India: Article 12