Bombay High Court
JEETU PREMCHAND CHAUTELE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS PRINCIPAL SEC. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in limiting consideration to only those petitioners who filed writ petitions and remanded the matter for a fresh determination of eligibility based on the prescribed criteria.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of workers, challenged the Industrial Court's order appointing Safai Kamgar on the basis of a narrow set of criteria, including seniority list inclusion, filing a writ petition before the High Court, age below 50, and possession of an Aadhaar number. They argued that the Industrial Court wrongly limited consideration to only those who had filed writ petitions, ignoring other complainants listed in Complaint (ULP) No.134 of 2007. The High Court examined the criteria and found the limitation erroneous, directing that all workers whose names appear in the seniority list and the original complaint list be eligible, provided they meet the age and Aadhaar requirements. The Court ordered the Industrial Court to re‑examine the petitioners' eligibility afresh, within three months, and to verify their inclusion in the relevant lists. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with the remand direction, and no immediate appointment was granted.
Issues considered
- The Industrial Court's restriction to petitioners who filed writ petitions before the High Court is legally valid.
- Whether the criteria of seniority list, age limit, Aadhaar possession, and inclusion in the original complaint list are proper for appointment as Safai Kamgar.
- Whether the High Court should remand the matter for fresh verification of eligibility.
Subjects
- appointment
- Safai Kamgar
- seniority list
- age limit
- Aadhaar
- industrial court
- writ petition
- remand
- labour law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34665
Megha 25_wp_11718_2025 group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11718 OF 2025
Anil Pagare and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11719 OF 2025
Jeetu Premchand Chautele and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15722 OF 2025
Vinod Anoopsingh Utwal and Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Ms. Shivani S. Shinde for the Petitioners.
Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for Respondent No.2.
Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/11718/2025.
Mr. P.V. Nelson-Rajan, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/11719/2025.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/15722/2025.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 20 AUGUST 2026.
Page No.1 of 4
20 August 2026
Megha 25_wp_11718_2025 group
P.C.:
1) The challenge in these Petitions is to the judgment and order
dated 31 January 2025 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court,
Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No.134 of 2007 as well as order dated 9 May
2025 passed in Review Application (ULP) No.1 of 2025.
2) I have heard Ms. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, Mr. Kamble, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2 and the learned AGPs appearing for the Respondent -State in the
respective Petitions and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Trial and the
Appellate Courts in the impugned orders. I have also perused the records
of the case filed alongwith the Petitions.
3) Perusal of the order passed by the Industrial Court would indicate
that following criteria have been determined by the Industrial Court for
granting appointment on the post of Safai Kamgar:-
35. In view of above, I am of the view that, only the (i)
Applicants having their names in Seniority List at Exh.-C-16 & U-
51, (ii) Applicants who have filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court, (iii) Applicants who have Not Crossed the Age
of 50 Years, as on 25-01-2010, (iv) Applicants having Aadhar
Number, shall be directed to be granted appointment on the Post of
Safai Kamgar. Accordingly now I proceed to consider the
entitlement of each of the Applicant as under-
Page No.2 of 4
20 August 2026
Megha 25_wp_11718_2025 group
4) So far as names being on seniority list are concerned, it is
contended on behalf of the Petitioners that their names actually figured
in the seniority list. They seek an opportunity to demonstrate this fact
before the Industrial Court. So far as names figuring in the Writ Petition
filed before this Court is concerned, the criteria appears to be totally
erroneous. Initially, Complaint (ULP) No.134 of 2007 was filed by several
workers and therefore all workers, who were Complainants in Complaint
(ULP) No.134 of 2007 are required to be considered for appointment
subject to fulfillment of other criteria. The Industrial Court has
committed an error by directing consideration of cases of only those
Petitioners, who filed Petition for execution of the order of the Industrial
Court. In my view, therefore, the proceedings deserve to be remanded to
the Industrial Court for verifying as to whether names of the Petitioners
figured in the list appended to the Complaint (ULP) No.134 of 2007. So
far as the criteria of having Aadhar Card number is concerned, I do not
find much difficulty for the Petitioners to procure Aadhar cards. They can
accordingly secure Aadhar cards and produce the same before the
Industrial Court. So far as the contention of not crossing the age of 50
years is concerned, the Petitioners have no qualms.
5) In the light of the above position, the proceedings are remanded
before the Industrial Court for re-examination of the claims of the
Petitioners. They shall be considered for appointment as Safai Kamgar if
they fulfill the criteria viz.,(i) reflection of names in seniority list, (ii)
reflection of names in the list of employees, on whose behalf the
Complaint (ULP) No. 134 of 2007 was filed, (iii) not crossing the age of 50
years and (iv) producing Aadhar card number. The Industrial Court shall
Page No.3 of 4
20 August 2026
Megha 25_wp_11718_2025 group
accordingly re-examine the eligibility of the Petitioners afresh according
to the above criteria. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of three months.
6) With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 20 August 2026
Date: 21/08/2026 20:30:04
Checking your session…