The State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Diwanji Raut

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3549 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Bhimabai Baban Golde Age:41 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Badnapur, Jalna Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ... Respondent (Ori. Complainant ) WRIT PETITION NO. 3550 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) 2025:BHC-AUG:37581

Shri. Nana Bhagoji Magre Age: 48 years, Occu: Labour, r/o. Gokulwadi, Tq. BadnaPur (Ori. Complaiant) Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent (Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4159 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Smt. Laxmibai Changdev Shinde Age:45 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Dhangar Galli , Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent (Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 3641 OF 2022 1)

2) 3) 4) Shri. Yashwanta Kachru Dabhade, Age: 45 years, Occu: Labour, r/o. Powerloom, Old MIDC Area, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 3643 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4)

Alkabai Vithal Jadhav. Age: 40 years, Occu: Labour, rl o. Chandanzira, Jalna Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 3642 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Kaushalyabai Asharam Bais, Age: 40 years, Occu: [-abour, r/o. Powerloom, Old MIDC Area, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4320 OF 2022 1) 2)

3) 4) Shri. Sanjay Prahlad Gavali Age: 47 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Sugandha Nagar, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Prabhakar Diwanji Raut Age:45 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Saundalgaon, Post Wadigodri, Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant)

WRIT PETITION NO. 4125 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Smt. Gangubari Datta Gauikwad Age: 45 years, Occu: Labour, R./o. Devagada, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4124 OF 2022 1) 2) 3)

4) Shri. Bhagwan Nivrutti Chavan Age: 50 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Ashok Samrat Nagar, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4158 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Smt. Nanibai Devidas Borade Age: 55 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Balaji Galli, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant)

WRIT PETITION NO. 4250 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Smt. Laxmibai Bhagwan Chavan Age:47 Years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Sugandha Nagar, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4243 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4)

Smt. Geetabai Asharam Panjanjal Age : 52 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Kaikadi Galli , Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4244 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Smt. Mathurabai Jagannath Bide Age: 50 years, Occu: Labour, R/o: Dhakalgaon, Post Wadigodri, Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2022 1)

2) 3) 4) Smt. Kausabai Shivram Khandare Age: 45 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Indira Nagar, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4247 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4)

Smt. Shashikalabai Bajba Chalak Age: 45 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Indira Nagar, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist' Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4245 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Smt. Chababai Parsaram Salve Age: 45 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Devthana, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna.

...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4248 OF 2022 1) 2)

3) 4) Smt. Meera Sanjay Gawli Age: 40 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Sugandha Nagar, Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant) WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 4) Smt. Shakuntala Pralhad Gawali Age: 50 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Sugandha Nagar Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent

(Ori. Complainant)

... AGP for the Petitioners/State : Mr.R.B.Dhaware Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Parag V. Barde CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 09.12.2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶1Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petitions finally with the consent of all the parties at the stage of admission.

¶2In all these petitions, the petitioners are assailing the judgments and award passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, whereby complaints filed by the employees came to be allowed thereby

directing

the

Petitioner/State

to

make

the respondents/employees permanent on the post of skilled labours from the date of presentation of the complaints. Following table contains the details impugned orders : Sr. No. Writ Petition Nos. Complaint (ULP) Nos. Date of orders.

¶13549/2022 111/2015 6/5/2021

¶23550/2022 112/2015 6/5/2021

¶34159/2022 64/2015 7/5/2021

¶43641/2022 40/2015 3/5/2021

¶53643/2022 37/2015 3/5/2021

¶63642/2022 41/2015 3/5/2021

¶74320/2022 51/2015 5/5/2021

¶84123/2022 72/2015 4/5/2021

¶94125/2022 61/2015 6/5/2021

¶104124/2022 62/2015 7/5/2021

¶114158/2022 63/2015 7/5/2021

¶124250/2022 52/2015 5/5/2021

¶134243/2022 65/2015 7/5/2021

¶144244/2022 71/2015 4/5/2021

¶154246/2022 58/2015 6/5/2021

¶164247/2022 59/2015 6/5/2021

¶174245/2022 50/2015 5/5/2021

¶184248/2022 60/2015 6/5/2021

¶194249/2022 49/2015 6/5/2021

¶3It was the case of the Complainants that they were appointed and worked as skilled labour as daily wages employees since the dates mentioned in the following table and they have completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding calender year. They were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts but the employer/State did not grant them permanency, therefore, they filed complaints before learned Industrial Court, Jalna, where evidence was tendered by all the parties and respondents/employees proved that they have completed 240 days of continuous service in preceding calender year. The dates of appointments of all employees are as follows : Sr. No. Writ Petition No. Complaint No. Joining Date 3549/2022 111/2015 1/7/1992 3550/2022 112/2015 1/5/1989 3641/2022 40/2015 1/7/1998 3642/2022 41/2015 10/01/1991 3643/2022 37/2015 10/01/1991 4320/2022 51/2015 1/5/1987 4250/2022 52/2015 1/6/1991 4249/2022 49/2015 1/2/1984 4248/2022 60/2015 25/06/1994

4247/2022 59/2015 1/1/1988 4246/2022 58/2015 1/7/1990 4245/2022 50/2015 1/6/1990 4244/2022 71/2015 1/6/1984 4123/2022 72/2015 10/6/1999 4243/2022 65/2015 1/6/1988 4159/2022 64/2015 1/7/1991 4158/2022 63/2015 1/6/1990 4124/2022 62/2015 1/7/1985 4125/2022 61/2015 1/6/1988

¶4In Writ Petition 3550 of 2022 the respondent/employee has proved through the evidence of Mr. Navnath s/o Rambhau Kokate (RW-1), the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer (Exhibit-20) that the nature of work of complainant was to fill the plastic bags with mud and plants sapling into it. There was over-all control and supervision of the petitioner/State over the respondent employee. His evidence was not disputed.

¶5The learned Industrial Court recorded the findings to that effect in paragraph Nos.11 and 15, which are reproduced as under : "11. Upon perusal of the evidence and materials on record it can be seen that the Complainant has been working with the respondents on daily wages since 1989 and the employment of the Complainant continues to be with the respondents even today. Furthermore, the working day statement of the Complainant from 1989 to 2002 filed on record by the respondents would also go to show that the complainant was employed as daily labour with the respondents and he has worked for more than 240 days from the inception of his joining till 2002. The case bills and payments made to the complainant by the respondents would apparently show that since 2002 and even till today, the wages are paid. The supply of

materials like Saplings, mud, water, urea, transportation and other implements used in the said work and other ancillary materials by the respondent to the Complainant would show that the Employer has control over the employee. Thus, it is difficult to agree with the submissions of the learned advocate for the respondents that there is no employer-employee relationship between Complainant and the respondents and the same is not convincing and does not hod water. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the Maharashtra civil Services Rules are applicable to the workmen doing daily wages. On the contrary, the admission on the part of the respondents in their say of having issued notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the complainant would show that MCSR are not applicable rather Labour jurisprudence is applicable. My attention is also drawn by the learned Advocate for the Complainant on the judgment passed in Complaint (ULP) Nol. 05 of 2008, wherein the complaint of identically situated daily wage workers was held by the Industrial Court to be maintainable, which impugned order when challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ jurisdiction being WP No. 871 of 2011 was upheld and was not disturbed even by the Highest Court of the land in SLP (Civil) No. 8871 of 2013. Thus, there remains no force in the argument of the learned Advocate for the respondents that the present complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 1 in the affirmative.

¶15Observing this, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint. Benefits of permanency, undeniably forms integral component of wages or wage structure. In view of the aforesaid legal position, which is squarely applicable to the present case, it cannot be said that the present complaint against non payment of benefits of permanency is at all barred by limitation, merely for the fact that the complainant had filed complaint to redress her grievance after long years since she completed 240 days of work from the date of her joining. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 2 in the Negative."

In other Writ Petitions also the respondent/employees have proved their contention through examining witnesses.

¶6The learned Industrial Court after perusal of documents and the evidence led by the respondents/employees allowed the complaints.

¶7The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Dairy Manager and another, reported in [(2020) 17 SCC 393] observed in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 as under: "12. In view of the aforesaid facts as also the legal pronouncements made subsequently, we have no doubt that these appellants before us would be entitled to the benefit of regularisation and mere delay in preferring the claim would not come in their way except that the benefit of regularisation would arise from the date the complaints were filed.

¶13The finding of an unfair labour practice by the Tribunal has in fact been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the present case and the only two reasons for interference by the Division Bench relating to Umadevi

(3) case have already been explained in the aforesaid subsequent judgments.

¶14We thus, direct the respondents to regularise the appellants accordingly and the necessary orders be issued within three months from the date of the order. The benefits which the appellants would be entitled to should also be remitted to the appellants within the same period from the date of the complaints, though the earlier period would be counted for the purpose of calculation of benefits without the appellants being monetarily entitled for that period."

¶8The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221) has observed in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 as under: "16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages

with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶17In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.

¶18The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future dally-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen In their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this Judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are require the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory equitable norms".

¶9Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in (2025 SCC Online 1735) observed in paragraph 17 to 20, as under: "17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶18Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing keep and produce accurate

arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human is not consequences of prolonged insecurity sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

¶19Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material Indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from

24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the

successor

establishment

(U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create the or supernumerary posts in corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent)

and

Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from

24.04.2002

until

the

date

of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (1), within three months of this Judgment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

¶20We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for

lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India".

¶10The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, has also observed in paragraphs 9, 20 and 26 as under: "9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents:

(i)…………...

(ii) Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce.

(iii)…………...

(iv)…………...

(v)…………...

(vi)…………...

20.…………… The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution

becomes paramount Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

¶7The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."

¶26……….It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the

judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the Judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."

¶11In the above judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue of regularization and held that if the daily wagers employees have worked for years together and subsequently, not given benefit of permanency then it amounts to unfair labour practices. The respondents/employees have proved before the learned Industrial Court that they have completed 240 days of continuous service in one calender year and therefore, the Industrial Court has rightly granted permanency in their favour.

¶12Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited cases, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. Hence I proceed to pass following order : ORDER

(i) The Writ Petitions are dismissed.

(ii) No order as to cost.

¶13Rule is discharged.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) mahajansb/