Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from a dispute concerning the termination of a badli bus driver employed by BEST, the transport undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The respondent was engaged as a daily bus driver from 15 March 2010 and later empanelled as a badli driver from 17 June 2011. The employer, BEST, operated a demerit point system under a departmental circular dated 27 June 1975, whereby accumulation of 20 demerit points could lead to striking off a badli worker's name from the panel. The respondent was alleged to have remained absent from duties during August to November 2011 and earned 25 demerit points by February 2012. Consequently, his name was struck off the badli register by memorandum dated 28 February 2012. The respondent, along with the union, filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), challenging the removal and seeking reinstatement with backwages. The Labour Court initially dismissed the complaint on 2 August 2014, holding that the respondent had no guaranteed right to employment. However, in revision, the Industrial Court reversed this decision on 15 September 2015, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The Industrial Court relied on the Certified Standing Orders, particularly Standing Orders 20, 21, and 23, to hold that the termination without a domestic inquiry was illegal. BEST then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, contending that the respondent was merely a badli worker not entitled to protection under the Standing Orders and that the departmental circular permitted such removal. The High Court framed two core issues: first, whether a badli driver could be removed without an inquiry under the Standing Orders, and second, whether Standing Order 26 (allowing termination with 24 hours' notice) applied independently or only after a full inquiry. The matter was heard and judgment reserved on 17 July 2026, but the provided text does not include the court's final reasoning or decision. The outcome thus remains unstated in the available extract.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Badli Workers - Applicability of Standing Orders to Badli Employees - Certified Standing Orders (Standing Orders 20, 21, 23, 26) - The core issue was whether a badli driver fell within the definition of 'employee' under the Certified Standing Orders, thereby requiring a domestic inquiry before termination for alleged misconduct of absence. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent was merely a badli driver whose name was struck off the panel under a departmental circular, and thus no inquiry was necessary. The Respondent argued that the Standing Orders define 'employee' inclusively and that termination for misconduct mandates inquiry under Standing Orders 20 and 23. (Paras 5-8, 10) B) Labour Law - Termination of Badli Worker - Effect of Standing Order 26 - Certified Standing Orders (Standing Order 26) - The question was whether Standing Order 26, which permits termination of a badli employee with less than two years' service by 24 hours' written notice, operates as a standalone provision or only after a full-fledged inquiry under Standing Orders 20, 21 and 23. The Petitioner invoked Standing Order 26 to justify the removal, while the Respondent maintained that an inquiry for misconduct was a condition precedent. (Paras 6, 8, 10) C) Labour Law - Certified Standing Orders - Statutory Override over Employer's Circulars - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 44; Certified Standing Orders - The issue considered was whether the departmental circular dated 27 June 1975, which prescribed demerit points and striking off names of badli workers, could override the Certified Standing Orders. The Respondent relied on Union of India v. K. Suri Babu to argue that Certified Standing Orders have a statutory mandate and prevail over internal circulars. (Paras 6, 8) D) Labour Law - Reinstatement and Backwages - Revisional Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 44 - The Industrial Court had set aside the Labour Court's dismissal and directed reinstatement with 50% backwages. The Petitioner challenged this order on the ground that the Industrial Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction, acted like an appellate court, and without indicating any basis for awarding backwages. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the services of a Badli Driver can be dispensed with without conducting inquiry under the Certified Standing Orders; Whether Standing Order No. 26 providing for termination of badli employees with 24 hours notice applies independently or only after conducting inquiry under Standing Order Nos. 20, 21 and 23
Law Points
- Certified Standing Orders have statutory force and override employer's circulars
- badli workers included in definition of employee under Standing Orders
- termination for misconduct of absence requires prior domestic inquiry
- Standing Order 26 does not operate as standalone provision without inquiry
- backwages awarded without basis oversteps revisional jurisdiction
