Bombay High Court
SHRI. VASANT VITTHAL NARUTE AND ORS.versusTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , PUNE IRRIGATION DIVISION
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioners were engaged under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, not as direct employees, and therefore no employer‑employee relationship existed to warrant reinstatement under unfair labour practice provisions.
Summary
The petitioners, former workers of the Pune Irrigation Division, challenged the Labour Court's orders that reinstated them after alleging unfair labour practices. They contended they were terminated on 1 July 1996 and sought reinstatement with back wages, without claiming any other benefits. The Labour Court held that they were directly employed by the Executive Engineer, ignoring evidence that they worked under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). On revision, the Industrial Court examined the fortnightly muster rolls, found the petitioners were engaged under the EGS, and concluded that no employer‑employee relationship existed, rendering reinstatement inappropriate. The High Court affirmed the Industrial Court's decision, dismissing the writ petitions as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners were employed directly by the Executive Engineer or under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, establishing an employer‑employee relationship.
- Whether the Labour Court erred in refusing to consider admissible evidence (fortnightly muster rolls) regarding the nature of employment.
- Whether termination and reinstatement relief under unfair labour practice provisions are available when the workers are engaged under the EGS.
- Whether the Industrial Court correctly set aside the Labour Court's orders.
Subjects
- unfair labour practice
- Employment Guarantee Scheme
- reinstatement
- industrial court
- labour court
- termination
- employer-employee relationship
Judgment
Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9057 OF 2018
Shri. Himant Genaba Khomne ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Executive Engineer, Pune
Irrigation Division ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2018
Shri. Kisan Laxman Khomne ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Executive Engineer , Pune
Irrigation Division ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6796 OF 2018
Shri. Vasant Vitthal Narute And Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
The Executive Engineer , Pune
Irrigation Division ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3495 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6796 OF 2018
Pralahad Laximan Shinde ...Petitioner
V/s.
Shri. Vasant Vitthal Narute And Ors ...Respondents
Page No.1 of 5
27 July 2026
Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018
________________
Mr. Nikhil Patil with Mr. Gajanan Shinde and Ms. Shreya Mahadik, for
Petitioner.
Mr. Sachin Gite, for Respondent No. 1-Pune Irrigation Division.
Ms. P.J. Gavhme, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition No. 9057 of
2018.
Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition No. 1006 of
2018.
Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition No. 6796
of 2018.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 27 July 2026
P.C.:
1) By these Petitions, Petitioners have challenged the judgments
and orders dated 7 June 2017 passed by the learned Member, Industrial
Court, Pune, allowing the Revision Applications filed by the Irrigation
Department and setting aside the orders dated 1 April 2016 passed by
Labour Court, Pune, in complaints of unfair labour practices instituted by
them.
2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, Mr. Gite, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1
and the learned AGPs in the respective Petitions and have considered the
submissions canvassed by them. I have gone through the findings
Page No.2 of 5
27 July 2026
Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018
recorded by the Labour and Industrial Courts in the respective orders. I
have also perused records of the case filed along with the Petitions.
3) Petitioners claim that they had rendered continuous service from
the year 1987 under the Executive Engineer, Pune, Irrigation Department
since 1997 till they were terminated on 1 July 1996. With a pure
griveance of termination from service they instituted complaints of
unfair labour practice before Labour Court Pune. In their complaints, the
only prayer made by them was for reinstatement in service with effect
from 1 July 1996, with continuity and back wages. There was no prayer
for grant of any benefits of Kalelkar Award. There was no prayer for
bringing them on Converted Temporary Establishment (CRTE) or grant
of permanency.
4) The Labour Court adjudicated the complaints filed by the
Petitioners. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent took a specific
defence that the Petitioners were not employed by the Respondent
directly, but they were engaged to perform tasks/work under the
Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The Petitioners, on their own,
could not produce any documentary evidence about direct engagement
as temporary workers by the Executive Engineer. On the other hand, the
Respondent was able to produce photocopies of the fortnightly muster
rolls for EGS works. When application was filed tendering the said
photocopies, the Petitioners submitted their say to the said application
expressing no objection for filling of the said documents. More
importantly, Petitioners conducted cross examination of Respondent’s
witness with reference to the photocopies of the fortnightly muster rolls
Page No.3 of 5
27 July 2026
Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018
for EGS. These twin actions on the part of the Petitioners, in expressing
no objection for filing of the documents and conducting cross
examination of Respondent’s witness with reference to those documents
clearly made the documents admissible in evidence.
5) The Labour Court had committed gross error in refusing to take
into consideration such admissible evidence. In absence of any iota of
evidence being produced by the Petitioners, the Labour Court
erroneously held that they were directly employed by the Executive
Engineer and that they were never engaged under the EGS scheme.
6) In my view, the Industrial Court has rightly corrected the error
committed by the Labour Court by taking into consideration the
documents produced by the Respondent alongwith the list at Exhibit C-
13. The fortnightly muster rolls clearly indicate that engagements of the
Petitioners were under the EGS. Since they worked under the EGS, there
is no question of either termination or reinstatement in service.
7) The Petitioners neither prayed for benefits of Kalelkar Award nor
for the benefit of permanency in any manner. The limited remit of
inquiry before the Labour Court was about the prayer for reinstatement.
Since the engagements are ultimately found to have been made under
EGS, there can be no employer-employee relationship between
Petitioners and Respondent and therefore there is no question of grant
of benefit of reinstatement.
Page No.4 of 5
27 July 2026
Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018
8) The Labour Court had erred in allowing the complaints filed by
the Petitioners. The Industrial Court has rightly set aside the orders
passed by the Labour Court. No interference is warranted in the
impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court.
9) The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim Application is
disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No.5 of 5
27 July 2026
Checking your session…