Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kumar Dashrath Kamble, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment and order dated 3 May 2023 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai, which dismissed his Complaint (ULP) No. 312 of 2018. The petitioner had sought a declaration of permanency as a sweeper at Bombay Hospital, the respondent, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in 12 months, a prerequisite for permanency. The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court erred in its appreciation of evidence and that he had indeed completed the required days. The respondent hospital contended that the petitioner was a temporary employee and did not fulfill the condition of continuous service. The High Court, in its judgment pronounced on 23 December 2025, held that the Industrial Court's finding was a pure finding of fact based on the evidence on record. The court noted that the petitioner had not produced sufficient documentary evidence to establish 240 days of work. The High Court observed that in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it does not re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. Since the Industrial Court's conclusion was not perverse, the High Court dismissed the petition. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Permanency - Continuous Service - Section 5-B of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - The petitioner sought declaration of permanency as a sweeper at Bombay Hospital. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in 12 months. The High Court upheld the finding, noting that the Industrial Court's conclusion was based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. The Industrial Court's finding that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of work was a pure finding of fact and not interfered with. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint seeking permanency on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove continuous service of 240 days in 12 months.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 3 May 2023. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Permanency declaration requires continuous service of 240 days in 12 months
- burden of proof on employee
- Industrial Court's factual findings not interfered with in writ jurisdiction
