Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Upendra Chandrakant Bhujbalrao, filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 10th December 2003 in Writ Petition No. 6191 of 2003. The writ petition arose from Complaint (ULP) No. 1220/1995 decided by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, under Items 1, 5, and 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court had dismissed the complaint. The appellant had worked as a Peon with the respondent University of Mumbai on an adhoc basis in leave vacancies intermittently from 1984 to 1995. He claimed that he had completed 240 days in a year and was entitled to permanency. However, he was not selected by the selection committee. The Single Judge rejected the writ petition but observed that if any work is available for the petitioner, the University may consider his case sympathetically. In the appeal, the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that there was no case on the merits. The Division Bench, consisting of Justices S.B. Mhase and D.B. Bhosale, held that since the appellant's appointment was temporary and adhoc, and he was not selected by the selection committee, there was no merit in the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but expressed sympathy for the appellant and noted that the Single Judge had already directed sympathetic consideration if work becomes available. The court did not interfere with the order of the Single Judge.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Employment - Regularisation - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 1,5,6 - Appellant worked as Peon on adhoc basis in leave vacancy from 1984 to 1995 intermittently - Industrial Court dismissed complaint under MRTU & PULP Act - Single Judge rejected writ petition with direction to consider sympathetically if work available - Appeal dismissed as no merit conceded - Held that temporary adhoc appointment does not create right to permanency (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a temporary employee working on adhoc basis in leave vacancy is entitled to permanency or regularisation
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the Single Judge dated 10th December 2003 is upheld. The Single Judge's direction that the University may consider the appellant's case sympathetically if any work is available is maintained.
Law Points
- Temporary adhoc appointment does not confer right to permanency
- No case on merits conceded by appellant's counsel
- Sympathetic consideration directed for future vacancies
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 149
Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 2004 in Writ Petition No. 6191 of 2003
Shri N.V. Bandiwadekar i/by Shri L.R. Castelino for the Appellant, Shri P.M. Palshikar for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3
Upendra Chandrakant Bhujbalrao
University of Mumbai, The Registrar of the University of Mumbai, The Dy. Registrar of University of Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition arising from complaint under MRTU & PULP Act
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought permanency or regularisation of his temporary adhoc employment as Peon with the University of Mumbai
Filing Reason
Appellant's complaint under MRTU & PULP Act was dismissed by Industrial Court; writ petition was also dismissed by Single Judge
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court dismissed Complaint (ULP) No. 1220/1995; Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition No. 6191/2003 with observation for sympathetic consideration
Issues
Whether a temporary employee working on adhoc basis in leave vacancy is entitled to permanency or regularisation
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel conceded no case on merits but argued that appellant worked intermittently from 1984 to 1995 and completed 240 days in a year, thus entitled to permanency
Respondent's counsel opposed the appeal, supporting the Single Judge's order
Ratio Decidendi
A temporary adhoc appointment in a leave vacancy does not confer any right to permanency or regularisation, especially when the employee was not selected by the selection committee. The court cannot grant relief on merits when the appellant's counsel concedes no case on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
It is an admitted position that the Petitioner/ Appellant was working in leave vacancy on temporary basis and therefore, his appointment was on adhoc basis.
Shri Bandiwadekar fairly conceded that there is no case on merits.
But since it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is no case on merits, we have every sympathy in favour of the appellant.
Procedural History
Complaint (ULP) No. 1220/1995 filed by appellant before Industrial Court, Mumbai under Items 1,5,6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act was dismissed. Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 6191/2003 before Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by Single Judge on 10th December 2003 with observation for sympathetic consideration. Appellant then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 2004 before Division Bench, which was dismissed on 27th April 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule IV, Items 1, 5, 6
