SACHIN ARUN BHINGARDIVEversusTHE SECRETARY DR N J PAULBUDHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (POLYTECHNIC) AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:36082


                                                              (1)                                WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 14883 OF 2023

                                                                                       District : Ahmednagar
                   Sachin Arun Bhingardive
                   Age : 38 years, Occ: Nil,
                   R/o : Nityaseva Society, Vasant Tekadi,
                   Ahmednagar, Ta. And District Ahmednagar                                      ...PETITIONER

                   VERSUS

           1.      The Secretary,
                   Dr. N. J. Paulbudhe Institute of Technology (Polytechnic),
                   Survey No.479/2, At post Narayandoh,
                   Taluka and District Ahmednagar

           2.      The Head Master/Principal,
                   Dr. N.J. Paulbudhe Institute of Technology (Polytechnic),
                   Survey No.479/2, At post Narayandoh,
                   Taluka and District Ahmednagar                                            ...RESPONDENTS
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner
           Mr. V. N. Upadhye, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         CORAM                        : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                         RESERVED DATE                : 13.08.2026
                                         PRONOUNCED DATE: 17.08.2026

           JUDGMENT :-

           .       The petitioner has filed this writ petition with following prayers :


                            “B) By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the
                            Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the
                            learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in
                            Complaint (ULP) No.38/2017, may kindly be quashed
                                        (2)                     WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




             and set aside to the extent of operative order clause
             No.3 and 4 with further direction to the respondents
             to grant permanency to the petitioner in service from
             the date of initial appointment i.e. from 11.08.2010.

             C) By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the
             Complaint (ULP) No.38/2017 filed before the
             Industrial Court Ahmednagar may kindly be allowed.

             D) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, the
             respondents may kindly be directed to grant
             permanency to the petitioner in service on the post of
             Peon in respondent No.2 insinuate.

             E) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, the
             respondents may kindly be directed to pay salary to
             the petitioner as per the pay scale applicable for the
             post of Peon as per the provisions of Maharashtra
             Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services)
             Rules, 1981 with grant of revision in the pay scale as
             per the 5th Pay Commission and 6th Pay Commission
             and to pay arrears of salary accordingly.”


2.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. At the instance of the parties, the

writ petition is heard for final disposal.


3.    Subject matter :


a)    The Petitioner was working with the Respondent – Management as a

Peon on a clear and vacant post. Despite the terms and conditions of the

appointment and his continuity in service for at least 7 years, the Petitioner

was neither conferred permanency nor was given remuneration in pay scale.

Hence he has filed a complaint under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra
                                      (3)                       WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,

1971 (for brevity “the Act”) before the learned Member of the Industrial

Court, Ahmednagar. During the pendency of the complaint, the Management

terminated the Petitioner. The Petitioner assailed his termination before the

School Tribunal, where the appeal is under adjudication.


b)    After hearing the parties, learned Member of the Industrial Court

Ahmednagar partly allowed Petitioner’s complaint. It was observed that the

Respondent–Management is engaged in unfair labour practices under Item

Nos.6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. Directions were given to the

Respondents to pay minimum wages to the complainant for a period of three

years preceding the date of filing of the complaint.


      Subject matter of the writ petition is “the refusal by the learned Member

of the Industrial Court to grant the relief of permanency.”


4.    Brief facts :


a)    It is not a fact disputed by any party that, after following due procedure

the Respondent–Management appointed the Petitioner on ad-hoc basis on the

post of Peon vide appointment order dated 11.08.2010. The Petitioner served

the Respondent–Management continuously under the said appointment order.
                                     (4)                        WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




b)    The petitioner neither received remuneration in pay scale nor benefit of

permanency was conferred upon the Petitioner despite having continuously

served for years together.


c)    Therefore, the Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2017 before

the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, under Section 28(1)

read with Item Nos.5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. In the complaint,

the Petitioner sought a declaration that the Respondent – Management is

indulged in unfair labour practices. It was also prayed that the Respondent–

Management be directed to confer permanency upon the Petitioner in view of

the fact that he had long back completed service of 240 days.


d)    Directions were sought to the respondent management to pay the

difference between the consolidated amount and the applicable pay scale was

also prayed for.


e)    The Respondent – Management appeared before the Industrial Court

and submitted its defense thereby denying the averments and the prayers

made by the Petitioner in his complaint.


f)    During the course of hearing of the complaint, the Respondent –

Management even terminated the Petitioner. Hence the Petitioner filed an

appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
                                     (5)                       WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for brevity “the MEPS Act)

before the School Tribunal.


g)    The learned Member of the Industrial Court heard the parties and partly

allowed Petitioner’s complaint. It was declared that the Respondents are

indulged in unfair labour practices. The relief of permanency was rejected. As

regards service remuneration, the Petitioner was held entitled only for

minimum wages, that too, for the last three years preceding the date of filing

the complaint.


      Hence, this petition.


5.    Submissions :


a)    Mr. Santosh Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that

the learned Member of the Industrial Court failed to consider that the

Petitioner has made out a case of permanency. That, the terms of appointment

itself show that the Respondent – Management has agreed to pay the

Petitioner such remuneration which is in terms of pay scale.


b)    Mr. Jadhavar’s further contention is that the impugned judgment and

order is half-hearted one. Mere declaration that the Respondent –

Management has indulged into unfair labour practices cannot be said to be
                                        (6)                       WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




justice. He would submit that while the Petitioner was appointed on pay scale,

the Industrial Court is not justified in directing minimum wages to the

Petitioner, that too, only for last preceding three years before the date of filing

the complaint. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Jadhavar that closure of his service

during pendency of his complaint can not be a ground to deny him the benefit

of permanency. With these submissions, Mr. Jadhavar prays to allow the writ

petition.


c)    Mr. V. N. Upadhye, learned Advocate for the Respondent – Management

would submit that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and

order passed by the Industrial Court.


d)    He would submit that the findings recorded by the learned Member of

the Industrial Court are well reasoned. Insofar as remuneration issue is

concerned, he would submit that the grant of minimum wages to the

complainant is perfectly as per the law and considering the nature of the

services.


e)    On the crucial point of permanency, Mr. Upadhye submits that the

Industrial Court has rightly observed that due to retrenchment, permanency

could not be conferred upon the Petitioner. He would dispute that the

Petitioner was terminated. According to Mr. Upadhye, evidently the petitioner
                                      (7)                       WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




was retrenched. He would submit that termination and retrenchment are

different concepts and methods to close down services of an employee.

However, effect in each case drastically differs from the other. With such

submissions, Mr. Upadhye, learned Advocate for the Respondent –

Management concludes his arguments.


6.    Considerations :


a)    I have heard both the learned Advocates for the respective parties at

length. Perused the pleadings of both the sides. Considering the controversy

which is narrowed down in the light of submissions, I framed following moot

points to be adjudicated :


      (i)    “While relief of permanency is to be adjudicated on the

      basis of the situation existing on the date of filing the complaint,

      whether subsequent termination/retrenchment can be a ground

      to deny the permanency?”


      (ii)   While admittedly Petitioner’s services are governed by the

      provisions under the MEPS Act and the Rules of 1981 thereunder,

      whether minimum wages act would be applicable to him?
                                       (8)                        WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




b)    It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was appointed on 11.08.2010 as a

Peon, may be shown as on an ad-hoc basis. There is nothing on record to show

that the appointment was for a specific period or on contract; meaning

thereby Petitioner’s appointment as a Peon was on clear and vacant post. The

argument advanced by Mr. Santosh Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the

Petitioner on the point of nature of appointment is acceptable.


c)    Learned Member of the Industrial Court has already observed in so

many words that the Respondent – Management is indulged in unfair labour

practices under Item Nos.5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act against the

Petitioner. There is no challenge from the side the Respondent – Management

against these findings.


d)    As regards refusal to direct permanency is concerned, I do have serious

reservations on the reasoning rendered by the learned Member of the

Industrial Court whereby the said relief is refused. It is a matter of record that

on the date of filing of the complaint the Petitioner was very much in service

on the basis of the appointment order (supra). The petition itself was filed for

grant of permanency. Although the Respondent – Management has come up

with a case that it has lawfully retrenched the Petitioner from the post. May it

be a retrenchment or a termination according to the Management and the
                                       (9)                        WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




Petitioner respectfully, the fact remains that the claim for permanency has to

be adjudicated on the basis of the fact and situation as they existed on the

date of filing of the complaint.


e)    It is an undisputed fact that the Respondent – Management has brought

Petitioner’s services to an end during the pendency of hearing of the

complaint. In my considered view, the termination/retrenchment shall not

relate back to the date of filing of the complaint to decide the issue of

permanency. Obviously, the Petitioner has approached to the School Tribunal

alleging that he is terminated by the Respondent – Management. The

Management may defend the appeal on the grounds available to it. The fate of

Petitioner’s discontinuation shall be decided by the Tribunal on its own merit.

However, findings rendered by this Court on ‘permanency status’ shall prevail

for the purpose of service benefits. It was for the Industrial Court to define the

“status” of the Petitioner as a permanent employee based on the facts and

record existed on the date of filing of the complaint.


f)    In view of this, I do not subscribe to the reasoning and observation

recorded by the learned Member of the Industrial Court that due to

subsequent development of retrenchment, relief of permanency could not be

granted. Suffice it to say that the Industrial Court has descriptively observed
                                       ( 10 )                     WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




about unfair labour practices at the behest of the Respondent – Management.


      In view of this, I find that the Petitioner has made out a case for relief of

permanency status. I answer the moot question holding that, “claim for

permanency has to be adjudicated on the basis of the facts and situation

holding field on the date of claim; and subsequent termination/retrenchment

can not be a ground to deny the claim for permanency.,’


g)    Insofar as the remuneration issue is concerned, learned Member of the

Industrial Court ought to have appreciated that the Petitioner was appointed

as a Peon in a private educational institute. The service terms and condition of

an employee working in a private educational institute are governed by the

provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules of 1981 thereunder. The Act and the

Rules provide for the remuneration that is pay scale to be paid to an employee

of a private school. In view of this, the Industrial Court is not justified in

granting minimum wages to the Petitioner as is ordered in paragraph 3 of the

operative order in the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2023.


h)    For the reasons recorded above, the petition must succeed. The

Petitioner has made out a successful case for causing interference of this Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of this, I pass following

order :
                                      ( 11 )                     WP 14883 OF 2023.odt




                                   ORDER

      I.     Writ Petition stands allowed.

      II.    Impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 passed
      by the learned Member Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in
      Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2017 is quashed and set aside to the
      extent of clause Nos.3 and 4 of the operative order.

      III.   It is declared that the Petitioner is entitled for the
      benefits of permanency in service on the basis of initial
      appointment order dated 11.08.2010 within the meaning of
      provisions of the MEPS Act and the Rules of 1981 thereunder.
      Legality of Petitioner’s termination/retrenchment shall be
      subject to the decision of the School Tribunal. The status of
      permanency shall be for the purpose of service benefits.

      IV.    The Petitioner is entitled for salary in the applicable pay
      scale as per the provisions of the MEPS Act and the Rules of
      1981 thereunder from the date of his initial appointment till
      the date of his termination/retrenchment.

      V.     The Respondent – Management, within four (4) months
      from today, shall pay such due amount to the Petitioner. Any
      payment made earlier shall be adjusted.

      VI.    Rule is made absolute in above terms.



                                                   [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW