Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a batch of 13 writ petitions arising from complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The complainants, Safai Karmacharis employed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC), alleged that they had been working as substitute workers for periods ranging up to 22 years despite performing regular work and completing over 240 days of service each calendar year. They contended that NMC’s failure to regularize their services amounted to unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. They further relied upon Clause 4(C) of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, to claim a right to regularization upon continuous service. The complainants also referred to NMC resolutions dated 27.11.2015 and 21.01.2016 creating additional posts for Safai Karmacharis and an earlier resolution dated 30.11.2009 under which some workers had been regularized. The NMC, in its written statement, resisted the complaints on the ground that the complainants were not appointed through the prescribed regular selection process. The Industrial Court, Nagpur, had earlier adjudicated the complaints and passed orders which were challenged in these writ petitions. Some petitions were filed by individual employees, while others were filed by NMC. The Industrial Court was impleaded as a respondent in some petitions but was subsequently deleted by the High Court. The High Court consolidated all petitions, heard arguments from counsel for all parties, and reserved its judgment. No final decision or ratio decidendi is available as the judgment text provided is incomplete.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s failure to regularize the services of substitute Safai Karmacharis who have worked for over two decades constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, and whether the complainants are entitled to regularization under the Model Standing Orders and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
Law Points
- unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act)
- right to regularization upon completion of 240 days of continuous service under Clause 4(C) of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- obligation to implement municipal resolutions for creation of posts
- prohibition against extracting regular work from substitute workers without regularization
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 265
Writ Petition No. 4967 of 2023 and connected matters
Mr. V. P. Marpakwar for petitioners in W.P. No. 4968 of 2023 and 4967 of 2023; Mr. S. N. Bhattad for respondent no.1 in W.P. No. 4968 of 2023 and 4967 of 2023 and for petitioners in other respective petitions; Mr. U. P. Aakare for respondent no.1 in respective petitions; Mr. S. B. Bissa, AGP for respondent/State
Nagpur Municipal Corporation (as petitioner in several petitions) and Subhash Sahare & others (as petitioners in other petitions)
Rajkumar Burbure (original complainant) and the State of Maharashtra (in multiple petitions)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders of the Industrial Court passed in complaints under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practices by Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
Remedy Sought
Complainants sought regularization of their services and a declaration that NMC had committed unfair labour practices; NMC sought to quash the Industrial Court’s orders directing regularization.
Filing Reason
Complainants alleged they were employed as substitute Safai Karmacharis for over two decades, performed regular duties, completed more than 240 days of service each year, and were entitled to regularization under the Model Standing Orders, yet NMC failed to regularize them despite resolutions creating posts.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Nagpur, had adjudicated Complaint ULP No. 413 of 2015 and similar complaints, issuing directions which are the subject matter of the present writ petitions. The specific terms of those directions are not detailed in the available text.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court’s orders directing regularization of long‑serving substitute Safai Karmacharis are legally sustainable under the MRTU & PULP Act and Model Standing Orders.
Whether NMC’s failure to regularize the complainants despite continuous service and creation of posts constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV.
Submissions/Arguments
Complainants argued that they had worked for over 22 years as substitute workers, performed regular work, completed 240 days each year, and were entitled to regularization under Clause 4(C) of the Model Standing Orders; they relied on NMC resolutions creating posts and past regularization of similarly placed workers.
NMC contended that the complainants were not appointed through the prescribed regular selection procedure and therefore could not claim regularization.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
All these petitions give rise to identical questions of law and the facts of the petitions are almost similar, therefore, the petitions are being decided by a common judgment.
Procedural History
Complaints under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act were filed before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, alleging unfair labour practices by NMC. The Industrial Court passed orders. Aggrieved parties filed the present writ petitions. In some petitions, the Industrial Court was impleaded as a respondent but was subsequently deleted by the High Court on 21.08.2023. The High Court heard all petitions together and reserved judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Schedule IV Items 6 and 9
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946:
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Clause 4(C) of Model Standing Orders
