Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH UPSANCHALAK SAMAJIK WANIKARAN BEEDversusRAMCHANDRA BHANUDAS VEER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back‑wages.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra, represented by UPSANCHALAK SAMAJIK WANIKARAN BEED, filed writ petitions challenging the Labour Court's orders that reinstated four watchmen who had been terminated orally without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. The employees had completed over 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year, qualifying them as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court found the State to be an "industry" and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back‑wages. The High Court, relying on several Supreme Court decisions interpreting regularisation, unfair labour practice, and constitutional protections for state employees, upheld the Labour Court's findings and dismissed the writ petitions. Consequently, the employees retain their reinstated positions, back‑wage entitlement, and the State is directed to comply with the Labour Court's award.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of the watchmen without notice, notice‑pay or retrenchment compensation violated the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether the employees qualify as "workmen" entitled to the protections of the Act.
- Whether the State, as a constitutional employer, can rely on contractual labels to deny regularisation and statutory benefits.
- Whether the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back‑wages is sustainable in view of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2, 6E, 6N
Subjects
- regularisation
- back‑wages
- industrial disputes
- workmen
- termination without notice
- constitutional employer
- unfair labour practice
- continuity of service
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:20484
1 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
30 WRIT PETITION NO. 2056 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH UPSANCHALAK SAMAJIK
WANIKARAN BEED
VERSUS
RAMKISAN GANPATI PANBADE
...
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh K. Khandelwal, Advocate for Respondent.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2059 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH UPSANCHALAK SAMAJIK
WANIKARAN BEED
VERSUS
RAMCHANDRA BHANUDAS VEER
…
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh K. Khandelwal, Advocate for Respondent.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH UPSANCHALAK SAMAJIK
WANIKARAN BEED
VERSUS
GOVIND BALIRAM PAWAR
…
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh K. Khandelwal, Advocate for Respondent.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH UPSANCHALAK SAMAJIK
WANIKARAN BEED
VERSUS
BALIRAM NAMDEO THAPDE
…
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh K. Khandelwal, Advocate for Respondent.
Tauseef
2 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 10th APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the
petitions finally with the consent of the parties at the stage of
admission.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners are assailing the judgments
and awards dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer
and Judge, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference (IDA)
Nos.332/2010, 333/2010, 335/2010 and 334/2010, whereby
references were answered partly in affirmative thereby reinstating the
employees with continuity in service along with 25% back-wages w.e.f.
the date of their termination.
3. It is the case of the Respondents/Employees that they were
appointed on 01.07.1995, 17.02.1992, 20.10.1995 and 24.06.1995
respectively and worked as watchman since then. 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 employers/State did not grant them permanency. Rather
terminated them orally without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment
compensation. Therefore, they filed references before learned Labour
Court, Aurangabad, where evidence was tendered by the parties and
Tauseef
3 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
Respondents/Employees proved that they have completed 240 days of
continuous service in preceding calender year.
4. The perusal of impugned order reveals that the learned
Labour Court has given cogent reasons for reaching to the conclusion
that the Petitioner is an “Industry” and Respondents/Employees are
“Workmen” under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
findings recorded by learned Labour Court reveal that
Respondents/Employees were appointed as watchmen and they have
completed of 240 days of service. The Petitioner failed to prove before
the learned Labour Court that Respondents/Employees worked under
Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The “last come first go”
principle was not followed. The Petitioner failed to produce muster
roll and publish seniority list.
5. The learned Labour Court after perusal of documents and the
evidence led by the Respondents/Employees allowed the references
partly.
6. The 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
Tauseef
4 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
come in their way except that the benefit of regularisation would
arise from the date the complaints were filed.
13. The 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.
14. We 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."
7. The 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.
17. In 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.
Tauseef
5 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
18. The 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".
8. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dharam
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 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
Tauseef
6 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
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.
18. Moreover, 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.
19. Having 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
Tauseef
7 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
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.
20. We 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
Tauseef
8 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India".
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of
India & Ors., 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
Tauseef
9 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
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).
7. The 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."
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 99 has held in
Paragraph Nos. 13.10 and 14 as under :
“13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the
mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement
denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having
availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a
decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having
consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot,
in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly
Tauseef
10 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal
contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary,
inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model
employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we
summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the
appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the
nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying
them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement
solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either
recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of
fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize
arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on
contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra)
to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving
employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and
constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the
appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were
initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all
consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this
judgment.”
11. In the above judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
considered the issue of regularization and permanency and held that if
the daily wager employee has worked for years together and
subsequently, terminated without any notice, inquiry, notice pay or
retrenchment compensation despite completion of 240 days of
continuous service then it amounts to unfair labour practices. The
Tauseef
11 of 11 30-WP.2056.2017-J
Respondents/Employees have proved before the learned Labour Court
that they have completed 240 days of continuous service in one
calender year and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly granted
reinstatement with continuity in service along with 25% back-wages
from the date of their oral termination.
12. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the above cited cases, I am not inclined to allow the present petition.
Hence I proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are dismissed.
(ii) No order as to cost.
13. Rule is discharged.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…