Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, being authorities of the Zilla Parishad, Gondia, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bhandara Bench, which had directed regularisation of the first respondents as Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANM) and held that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The first respondents had been appointed as ANM in 2010 under a Government Resolution dated 02.05.2009 for a temporary bond period of two years, with explicit terms that their services would end upon expiry of the bond. An order dated 25.09.2012 terminated their services effective 18.10.2012. The respondents filed complaints before the Industrial Court, which ruled in their favour, directing regularisation and back wages from 18.10.2012 to 01.04.2014. During the pendency of the complaints, the High Court had ordered reinstatement. The petitioners contended that the Industrial Court had misinterpreted the GR and disregarded a binding Division Bench decision in Pushpa Matthulal Katre vs. Collector, Gondia (W.P. No. 2791/2013) which had denied regularisation to a similarly situated employee. The main legal question before the High Court was whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting regularisation and holding unfair labour practices. As per the arguments advanced, the petitioners stressed that the appointments were purely temporary and the GR did not confer any right to regularisation. The judgment examined the GR, the appointment orders, and the earlier Division Bench ruling. (The full text of the judgment beyond paragraph 10 was not provided; the above summary is based on the available excerpt.)
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Entitlement to regularisation of temporary ANM appointees - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 5, 6, 9 - The Industrial Court allowed complaints seeking regularisation, interpreting Government Resolution dated 02.05.2009; the High Court noted that the appointments were made temporarily for a bond period of two years and that a Division Bench had held a similarly situated employee not entitled to regularisation under the same GR (Paras 5, 7, 9, 10).
B) Industrial Disputes - Unfair Labour Practices - Allegations of unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV - The complaints alleged that discontinuation of service and failure to regularise constituted unfair labour practices; the Industrial Court accepted this contention; the High Court examined whether the actions fell within the scope of unfair labour practices given the temporary nature of appointments (Paras 8-9).
C) Precedent - Binding Effect - Division Bench judgment in Pushpa Matthulal Katre vs. Collector, Gondia - The petitioners argued that the Industrial Court orders were contrary to a binding Division Bench judgment dated 28.10.2013 which had denied regularisation to an identically placed employee; the High Court noted this conflict (Paras 5, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in allowing complaints filed by the first respondents, granting regularisation in the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM), and holding that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text excerpt
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Temporary appointment for fixed bond period does not confer right to regularisation
- GR dated 02.05.2009 does not provide for automatic regularisation
- Industrial Court misinterpreted GR
- Division Bench judgment in Pushpa Katre case binding
- Unfair labour practices under Items 5
- 6
- 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act not made out when termination is as per appointment terms
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 184
Writ Petition No. 5967 of 2018 with connected writ petitions (WP No. 6400/2018, WP No. 6375/2018, WP No. 6376/2018, WP No. 6396/2018, WP No. 6397/2018, WP No. 6398/2018, WP No. 6399/2018, WP No. 6401/2018, WP No. 6402/2018, WP No. 6403/2018, WP No. 6404/2018)
Mr. A. Y. Kapgate (for petitioners), Mr. P. D. Meghe (for respondent No.1), Mr. D. R. Dhumale, AGP (for respondents No.2 & 3)
Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Gondia and Others
Sangita Shriram Madavi and others (including Collector, Gondia and Deputy Director of Health Services)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Industrial Court that granted regularisation and back wages to Auxiliary Nurse Midwife workers and held that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Industrial Court orders and dismissal of the complaints filed by the first respondents.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the Industrial Court had misinterpreted the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2009 and that its orders were contrary to a binding Division Bench judgment of the High Court which had denied regularisation to similarly placed employees.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bhandara Bench had allowed the complaints filed by the first respondents, declaring unfair labour practices and directing regularisation. During the pendency of the complaints, the High Court had directed reinstatement of the first respondents.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in allowing the complaints and granting regularisation to the first respondents who were appointed on temporary basis for a bond period of two years.
Whether the actions of the petitioners in discontinuing the services after the bond period amounted to unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Whether the Industrial Court correctly interpreted Government Resolution dated 02.05.2009.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: The Industrial Court committed a grave error in allowing the complaints; the GR dated 02.05.2009 was completely misinterpreted; the Division Bench judgment in Pushpa Katre case had held that identically situated employee was not entitled to regularisation under the same GR; the appointments were purely temporary and came to an end automatically.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned in the provided text excerpt
Judgment Excerpts
According to the petitioners, the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court are in the teeth of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pushpa Matthulal Katre & others vs. Collector, Gondia and others [W. P. No. 2791/2013], whereby Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.10.2013, had categorically held that an employee identically situated like the contesting respondents herein, was not entitled to benefit of regularization under Government Resolution ( GR ) dated 02.05.2009, while the Industrial Court in the impugned orders relied upon the said GR to grant relief to the contesting respondents.
the appointment order, which specifically stated that the appointments were made temporarily for a period of two years of bond. A reference was made to the aforesaid GR dated 02.05.2009 in the said appointment order and in the terms and conditions appended to the appointment order, it was specifically stated that the appointment to the said post was only for a period of two years of bond, being temporary in nature and that the appointments would come to an end at the end of the period of two years.
Procedural History
On 02.05.2009, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution regarding appointment of ANMs on bond for two years. On 19.10.2010, the first respondents were sponsored and appointed as ANM on temporary basis for two years. On 25.09.2012, the petitioners issued an order terminating the services of the first respondents with effect from 18.10.2012. The first respondents filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bhandara Bench, alleging unfair labour practices and seeking regularisation. During the pendency of the complaints, the High Court directed reinstatement. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints, declaring unfair labour practices and directing regularisation and back wages from 18.10.2012 to 01.04.2014. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging these orders. The High Court, by order dated 18.10.2019, granted Rule in all petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV
