Case Note & Summary
These four writ petitions, heard together by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, arose from the dismissal by the Industrial Court of complaints filed under Section 28 read with Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioners, Pradip Ramesh Shinde, Bhushan Suresh Thakre, Sunil Ananda Bagul, and Sheikh Javid Sheikh Rashid, were employed by the respondent Malegaon Municipal Corporation as Drivers or Firemen on daily wages/contract basis. The first two petitioners were appointed as Drivers by order dated 27.02.2017 for six months with effect from 01.03.2017 to 31.08.2017 at a salary of Rs.7,000 per month, later extended by orders dated 11.01.2019 and 06.01.2020 at Rs.8,000 per month. The other two petitioners were appointed as Firemen by order dated 07.04.2017 in a similar manner. The petitioners contended that they had continuously worked for over five years, performing the same duties as regular employees, despite intermittent break orders, and that the Corporation had vacant sanctioned posts. They filed unfair labour practice complaints seeking permanency. The Industrial Court initially granted interim protection by order dated 04.11.2019, finding a prima facie case, and directed continuation pending final disposal. The main complaints, however, were dismissed by judgment dated 06.05.2025, with ad-interim protection extended until 01.07.2025 to allow the petitioners to approach the High Court. The petitioners filed writ petitions on 13.06.2025 but could not obtain interim relief before 01.07.2025, and the respondent Corporation terminated their services by order dated 03.07.2025. Petitioners amended the petitions on 16.07.2025 to challenge the termination as well. In the High Court, the petitioners argued that they had worked for more than 240 days and for five years continuously, that the Corporation had admitted vacant posts, and that the financial restraint of 35% establishment expenditure under Government Resolution dated 14.01.2016 could not justify indefinite contractual employment. The respondent Corporation argued through affidavits filed by its Additional Commissioner that the Government had sanctioned 2,673 posts out of a proposed 3,760, subject to the condition that establishment expenditure should not exceed 35% of annual revenue, but the Corporation had already incurred 49.20% for 2024-2025, making fresh appointments impossible. The High Court heard both sides and recorded that submissions received due consideration, but the provided text ends at paragraph 11 before the court's final analysis and decision. Therefore, the final outcome is not available in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Daily-wage employees engaged as drivers and firemen for over five years with intermittent renewal orders contended that their continuous service and work on vacant sanctioned posts entitled them to permanency; the Industrial Court initially found a prima facie case and granted interim protection, but ultimately dismissed the main complaints by judgment dated 06.05.2025 - The High Court heard arguments on why the dismissal should be set aside, focusing on continuity, 240-day rule, and exploitation through contractual employment; final decision not provided in the extracted text (Paras 6.1-6.3, 8.1-8.2, 9.1-9.2). B) Labour Law - Termination during Pendency - Termination order dated 03.07.2025 passed while writ petitions were pending after interim protection lapsed; petitioners challenged this as defiance of court rulings; respondent argued it was powerless due to financial constraints - The court permitted amendment to include this challenge; no final determination recorded (Paras 6.4-6.5, 8.5, 9.1). C) Administrative Law - Government Resolution and Staffing Pattern - Government Resolution dated 14.01.2016 approved staffing pattern of 2,673 posts subject to establishment expenditure not exceeding 35% of annual revenue; respondent claimed actual expenditure at 49.20%, making fresh appointments impossible - Whether financial constraints can defeat statutory/industrial rights to permanency was argued; not decided in available text (Paras 9.1-9.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the petitioners' complaints under Section 28 read with Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971; whether termination of services dated 03.07.2025 during pendency of writ petitions was legal; whether financial constraints and Government Resolution dated 14.01.2016 imposing 35% establishment expenditure limit could defeat claim for permanency
Law Points
- Daily-wage employees performing same duties as regular employees on vacant sanctioned posts for over five years may be entitled to permanency under MRTU & PULP Act
- termination during pendency of writ petition is an act of defiance
- financial constraints of establishment expenditure limit cannot justify indefinite contractual employment
