Bombay High Court
BOMBAY MOTHERS AND CHILDREN WELFARE SOCIETYversusDHANANJAY SURYAKANT NAIK AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The Court held that, despite the dismissal of the labour disputes, the employees are entitled to withdraw the 50% wage amount deposited by the NGO, with interest, and dismissed the other pending writ petitions.
Summary
The case arose from the termination of three employees of the NGO Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society after the India Population Project V ended in February 1997. The employees filed labour disputes and obtained interim stays, later seeking recovery of wages for March 1997‑November 1998 under Section 33‑C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which were allowed by the Labour Court. The NGO challenged those awards in several writ petitions, while the employees’ original complaint and subsequent revision were dismissed. The High Court noted that reinstatement was impossible as the project had ended and the employees were past retirement age, and it held that the interim order requiring the NGO to deposit 50% of the awarded wages should not merge into the final order. Consequently, the Court permitted the employees to withdraw the deposited amount with interest, dismissed the separate writ petition of Mahapalika Arogya Seva, and partly allowed the NGO’s writ petitions, thereby disposing of all matters.
Issues considered
- The liability of the NGO to pay the full wages awarded by the Labour Court after the dismissal of the employees' original complaint and revision.
- Whether the interim order directing the NGO to deposit 50% of the awarded wages merges into the final order.
- The entitlement of the employees to withdraw the deposited amount with interest.
- The maintainability of the writ petition filed by Mahapalika Arogya Seva Sanghatana given the project’s termination and the employees’ retirement.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 33-C(2)
Subjects
- Industrial Disputes Act
- wage recovery
- labour court
- interim order
- deposit of wages
- project termination
- reinstatement
- civil writ
- High Court
- employment termination
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:31951
Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5712 OF 2005
Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare
Society ...Petitioner
V/s.
Yeshwant Maruti Bhandare and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1514 OF 2006
Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare
Society ...Petitioner
V/s.
Dhananjay Suryakant Naik and Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1515 OF 2006
Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare
Society ...Petitioner
V/s.
Krishankant Dattatraya Dandekar and
Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1516 OF 2006
Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare
Society ...Petitioner
V/s.
Page No.1 of 7
31 July 2026
Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group
Yeshwant Maruti Bhandare and Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.586 OF 2007
Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari
Sanghatana, Mumbai ...Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Rajesh Gehani and Mr. Mahendra Agvekar with Ms. Shraddha Chavan
i/b. Mr. Rajesh Gehani for the Petitioner in WP/5712/2005,
WP/1516/2006, WP/1515/2006 and WP/1514/2006.
Mr. Prakash Devdas with Ms. Vidula Patil and Ms. Mansi Kanitkar for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP/5712/2005, and for Respondent No.1 in
remaining Writ Petitions and for the Petitioner in Writ Petition
No.586/2007.
Mr. Santosh Parad for Respondent-BMC.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 31 JULY 2026.
P.C.:
1) These @ve Petitions arise out of engagement of Mr. Yeshwant
Bhandare, Mr. Dhananjay Naik and Mr. Krishankant Dandekar (the three
employees) in a project named India Population Project V (the Project),
which was implemented by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
(MCGM) through various Non-Government Organisations. The
Page No.2 of 7
31 July 2026
Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group
concerned NGO in respect of the three employees is the Petitioner -
Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society (the NGO). Since the
Project came to an end on 28 February 1997, services of the three
employees were to be terminated. Those three employees @led
Complaint (ULP) No.85 of 1997 challenging their termination. During
pendency of the Complaint, the Labour Court granted interim stay on
termination. It is the case of the said three employees that on the
strength of the interim stay granted by the Labour Court they continued
to work but were not paid wages. Therefore Application (IDA) Nos.1196,
1197 and 1198 of 1997 were @led by the trio under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( ID Act) for recovery of wages for the period
from March 1997 to November-1997. For the next period December-1997
to November-1998, the said three employees @led second set of
Applications under Section 33(C)-2 of the ID Act, which were numbered
as Application (IDA) Nos.803, 804 and 805 of 1998. All the six
applications @led under Section 33(C)-2 of the ID Act came to be allowed
by the Labour Court by separate orders directing the NGO to pay the
wages for the periods from March-1997 to November-1997 and from
December-1997 to November-1998.
2) The Petitioner-NGO has accordingly @led Writ Petition Nos.5712
of 2005 challenging the order dated 11 May 2005 passed in Application
(IDA) Nos.1196 of 1997, 1197 of 1997 and 1198 of 1997. In respect of the
orders passed by the Labour Court on 21 October 2005 in Application
(IDA) Nos.803, 804 and 805 of 1998, the NGO has @led Writ Petition
Nos.1516, 1515 and 1514 of 2006.
Page No.3 of 7
31 July 2026
Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group
3) In the meantime, Complaint (ULP) No.85 of 1997 came to be
dismissed by the Labour Court by order dated 28 February 2006. Three
employees @led Revision Application (ULP) No.119 of 2006 before the
Industrial Court, Mumbai. Four Writ Petitions being Writ Petition
Nos.5712 of 2005, 1514 of 2006, 1515 of 2006 and 1516 of 2006 @led by
the NGO came up before this Court during pendency of the Revision. On
6 June 2007 this Court passed following order:-
Heard the learned counsel for quiet some time. Perused the
order passed in Writ Petition No.5712/05 so also interim order passed
in Writ Petition Nos.1514, 1515 and 1516 of 2006 dated 7.11.2006.
Issue Rule in these three writ petitions.
Ad-interim order dated 7.11.2006 shall continue subject to
condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount awarded by
the Labour Court in 33 C-2 application. It will not be out of place to
mention that the complaint No.85/97 @led by the respondent-
employees has been dismissed by the Labour Court vide its judgment
dated 28.2.2006 and the employees have @led revision before the
Industrial Court wherein interim order has been passed on 5.6.2006
granting stay to the termination. Unless and until employees succeed
in the complaint they will not claim the amount deposited in this
Court pursuant to the interim order passed. In the peculiar
circumstances of the present petitions I deem it appropriate to direct
the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai to @nally hear and decide
Revision Application No.119/06. Both the learned counsel appearing
for respective parties assure this Court of their cooperation for
expeditious disposal of the revision. I hope and trust that the
Industrial Court will decide the said revision as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of four months from today. Leave
is granted to the parties to move this Court for @nal disposal of writ
petitions after the judgment is delivered by Industrial Court in
revision application before it.
4) Thus, the Petitioner-NGO was directed to deposit 50% of the
amount awarded by the Labour Court in this Court with an observation
that withdrawal of the said amount would be dependent on outcome of
the revision. To the bad luck of the three employees, Revision
Page No.4 of 7
31 July 2026
Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group
Application (ULP) No.119 of 2006 came to be dismissed by the Industrial
Court by its judgment on 1 October 2007. Challenging the judgment and
order dated 1 October 2007 three employees alongwith Mahapalika
Arogya Seva Karmachari, Mumbai @led Writ Petition No.8889 of 2007,
which was rejected by this Court by order dated 5 December 2007.
5) Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 is @led by Mahapalika Arogya Seva
Karmachari Sanghatana, Mumbai, challenging order dated 20 June 2005
passed in Complaint (ULP) No.1058 of 2002, which was @led by the said
Union on behalf of 60 workmen relating to the Project in question. Writ
Petition has been admitted by this Court on 28 January 2008 without
granting any interim relief. All the @ve Petitions are called out for @nal
hearing.
6) I have heard Mr. Gehani, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner-NGO, Mr. Devdas, the learned counsel appearing for three
employees and Mr. Parad, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent -MCGM.
7) As aforesaid, the engagement of the three employees was project
speci@c. The project in question (Indian Population Project V) has
admittedly come to an end on 28 February 1997. Therefore, there is no
question of any opportunity for reinstatement of three employees. It also
appears that all the three employees have now crossed the age of
retirement. Mr. Devdas has fairly admitted this position. Since Petition
was admitted without grant of interim relief, three employees have not
worked during pendency of the Petitions. In my view, therefore, nothing
Page No.5 of 7
31 July 2026
Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group
remains to be adjudicated in Writ Petition No.586 of 2007, which
deserves to be dismissed.
8) In Writ Petition No.5712 of 2005 @led by the NGO, which
challenges order for payment of wages during March 1997 to November-
1997 and Writ Petition No.1514, 1515 and 1516 of 2005 relating to
payment of wages from December-1997 to November-1998, ordinarily,
this Court would have set aside orders passed by the Labour Court since
the Complaint (ULP) Nos.85 of 1997 has been dismissed, revision against
the order of the Labour Court is also dismissed and I have today
dismissed the Writ Petition No.586 of 2007. Ordinarily, interim order
merges into the @nal order. However, by interim order, the three
employees were permitted to continue in services and it is their claim
that they have actually worked during March-1997 to November -1998.
In my view, therefore, slight departure needs to be made from usual
settled principle of merger of interim order into the @nal order and in my
view at least 50% wages in respect of the said period needs to be paid to
those three employees. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court on
6 June 2007, the NGO has already deposited 50% of wages in respect of
the period March -1997 to November-1998. In my view the three workers
can be permitted to withdraw the said deposited amount alongwith
accrued interest. This would put an end to the long litigation by the
parties.
9) I accordingly, proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 is dismissed.
Page No.6 of 7
31 July 2026
Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group
(ii) Writ Petition Nos.5712 of 2005 and 1514 of 2006, 1515
of 2006 and 1516 of 2006 are partly allowed to the
extent of denial of 50% wages from March-1997 to
November-1998 to the concerned three employees.
(iii) Three employees are permitted to withdraw the entire
amount deposited in this Court alongwith accrued
interest.
10) With the above directions, all the @ve Petitions are disposed of.
Rule is discharged in Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 and Rule is made
partly absolute in Writ Petition Nos.5712 of 2005, 1514 of 2006, 1515 of
2006 and 1516 of 2006.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.7 of 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 31 July 2026
Date: 04/08/2026 15:34:30
Checking your session…