Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat, Digambar Pitambar Sonwane, Ishwar Yaswant Chaudhari, and Dagadu Narayan Patil, were appointed as daily wage employees by the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon. They worked for varying periods between 1995 and 2009. Their services were terminated without notice or compensation. They filed writ petitions seeking reinstatement and regularisation, contending that their termination was illegal and that they were entitled to equal pay for equal work. The court examined the appointments and found that they were made without following the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder. The appointments were not sanctioned by the competent authority and were made without any selection process. The court held that such appointments are void ab initio and confer no right to regularisation or reinstatement. The court further held that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply to daily wagers who are not appointed through a regular process. The court also held that termination of daily wage employees does not require compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Daily Wage Employees - Regularisation - Appointments made without following statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the Rules are void ab initio - Petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees without any selection process and their appointments were not sanctioned by the competent authority - Held that such employees have no right to regularisation or reinstatement (Paras 5-10). B) Service Law - Termination - Daily Wage Employees - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of daily wage employees does not require compliance with Section 25F as they are not workmen within the meaning of the Act - Held that the petitioners were not entitled to any notice or compensation before termination (Paras 11-12). C) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Daily Wage Employees - Principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable to daily wagers who are not appointed through a regular selection process - Held that the petitioners cannot claim parity with regular employees (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether daily wage employees appointed by the Municipal Corporation without following the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder are entitled to regularisation or reinstatement?
Final Decision
The writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to regularisation or reinstatement as their appointments were void ab initio, and termination did not require compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Daily wage employees have no right to regularisation or reinstatement
- Appointments made without following statutory provisions are void ab initio
- No right to claim permanency based on length of service alone
- Principle of equal pay for equal work not applicable to daily wagers
- Termination of daily wage employees does not require compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
