THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AHMEDNAGAR AND ANOTHERversusSOMNATH SOPAN PAWAR

2026:BHC-AUG:38963



                                                                     65 WP No.260.2014
                                               -1-

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2014

                     THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
                                 AHMEDNAGAR AND ANOTHER
                                          VERSUS
                                   SOMNATH SOPAN PAWAR
                                              ***
              AGP for the Petitioners-State : Mr. V. M. Jaware
              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Shivaji T. Shelke
                                              ***

                                CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                   Date : 24th August, 2026
              ORDER :-


              1.           The petitioners have challenged the judgment and

              order    dated   12.11.2010   rendered   by   the   learned   Member,

              Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 227/2000.

              The petitioners also challenged the order dated 07.02.2013

              rendered by the Industrial Court dismissing Review Application

              (ULP) No. 1/2011.



              2.           The respondent presented a complaint before the

              Industrial Court contending that respondent joined the Petitioner -

              ‘Seed Multiplication Centre’ as a labourer on 09.07.1988 and

              worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year,

              however, the petitioners deliberately gave technical breaks to deny

              the benefits of permanency while regularising junior employees.
                                                        65 WP No.260.2014
                                  -2-



3.          The petitioners appeared and presented a written

statement and resisted the claim. The Industrial Court declared

that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices under

Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and

directed to forward a proposal to the State Government for the

creation of new posts to accommodate the respondent.



4.          The learned AGP for the petitioners-State submits that

the Industrial Court committed a error while issuing a direction to

create new permanent posts since the creation of public posts

remains an exclusive prerogative of the State Government. The

learned AGP further submitted that the respondent was not

appointed through a regular procedure, issuance of direction for

regularisation is in violation of statutory mandates.



5.          The learned AGP further submitted that since the work

is entirely seasonal and temporary, directing the state to create

permanent post would burden the public exchequer. A prior ruling

in Writ Petition No. 4252/2008 had already granted the respondent

monetary differences for a limited period, which was overlooked.
                                                          65 WP No.260.2014
                                   -3-

6.           To support the contentions, the learned AGP has placed

reliance on the following judgments :-

     (a)     Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. Vs.
             Chander Hass and Anr. (2008 AIR SCW 406)

     (b)     State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Pandurang
             Sitaram Jadhav (2008 SCC OnLine Bom. 684)



7.           Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

supported    the   order   under    challenge      submitting    that   the

respondent    dedicated    continuous    service    to   the    petitioners'

establishment and completed the statutory threshold of 240 days.

Keeping an employee on a temporary or casual basis for years

while extracting regular work amounts to a unfair labour practice

under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court rightly

exercised the jurisdiction while directing the petitioners to send a

proposal for post creation.



8.           Having heard the learned counsel for litigating sides

and perusing the material available on record, the issue that arises

for consideration is whether an Industrial Court possesses the

power to direct the State Government to create new public posts

for the regularisation of temporary or seasonal staff.



9.           The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional
                                                                 65 WP No.260.2014
                                       -4-

Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. Vs. Chander Hass and

Anr. (supra) has held as under :-

           “15. The Court cannot direct the creation of posts.
           Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the
           executive or legislative authorities and the Court cannot
           arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative
           function, and direct creation of posts in any
           organization. This Court has time and again pointed out
           that the creation of a post is an executive or legislative
           function and it involves economic factors. Hence the
           Courts cannot take upon themselves the power of
           creation of a post. Therefore, the directions given by
           the High Court and First Appellate Court to create the
           posts of tractor driver and regularize the services of the
           respondents against the said posts cannot be sustained
           and are hereby set aside.”


10.        In    the     present     case,      the    record    indicates    and

establishes that the Petitioner - Seed Multiplication Centre runs on

non-irrigated   agricultural       land,     which    makes     its   operational

requirements inherently dependent on seasonal cycles. Daily wage

workers are engaged during agricultural periods and relieved when

the season concludes. The Industrial Court has committed an error

while in ignoring the fact continuous year-round work is not

available in an un-irrigated farming setup.



11.        While       directing    the      State    Authorities     to   forward

proposals to accommodate the respondent by creating post, the
                                                         65 WP No.260.2014
                                   -5-

Industrial    Court   acted    beyond      the   statutory   jurisdiction.

Consequently, the judgment as well as the order rendered in the

review application are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed.



12.           In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed.



13.           The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2010

rendered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP)

No. 227/2000, along with the review order dated 07.02.2013, are

quashed and set aside.



                                         (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

Omkar Joshi