Bombay High Court
Mumbai Port AuthorityversusMumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that there is no valid ground to interfere with the tribunal’s interim order directing the workman’s resumption on the same terms and conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Mumbai Port Authority, challenged an interim order dated 15 May 2026 issued by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑I directing that a workman, Shri Dhruvraj Singh, be allowed to resume duties on the same terms as his last engagement, pending final adjudication. The workman had been employed on a companionate basis since 2007 and was discontinued on 16 January 2026 due to a pending regularisation reference. The High Court examined whether the interim order should be interfered with, focusing on the nature of the workman's engagement and the scope of the tribunal's direction. The Court observed that the order merely required resumption on the same terms, which would apply even if the work was temporary or ad‑hoc, and found no valid ground to set aside the tribunal’s order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the interim order intact.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate scope of judicial review over an interim order of an industrial tribunal directing a workman's resumption on the same terms?
- Does the workman's status as a temporary/companionate employee affect the validity of the tribunal’s interim order?
Subjects
- Industrial dispute
- Interim order
- Industrial Tribunal
- Regularisation
- Temporary employment
- Writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
Sonali Mane 7-WP-9276-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9276 OF 2026
Mumbai Port Authority … Petitioner
Versus
Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General
Employees And Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Anand Pai a/w Mr. Sahil Sayed, Mr. Sudheendra B. Rao for
Petitioner.
Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Petitioner has challenged Interim Order dated
15 May 2026 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -I
directing it to permit the Respondent-Workman to resume his duties on
the same terms and conditions on which he was last engaged. The exact
directions issued in paragraph 29 of the Order are as under:
(i) The First Party Management is directed to permit the workman Shri
Dhruvraj Singh to resume duties within fifteen days from the date of this
order on the same terms and conditions on which he was last engaged,
subject to final outcome of the main reference.
(ii) The Management shall not take any punitive or vindictive action
MANE against the workman solely on account of pendency of the present
SONALI
DILIP industrial dispute without following due process of law.
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP
Date: 2026.09.22
11:44:21 +0530
___Page No.1 of 2___
18 September 2026
Sonali Mane 7-WP-9276-2026.docx
(iii) The Management shall further ensure that no artificial breaks are
introduced solely for the purpose of frustrating adjudication before this
Tribunal or defeating statutory claims, subject however to the rights and
contentions of both parties in the main reference.
(iv) It is clarified that this order shall not confer any right of
permanency, regularization or automatic continuity upon the workman
and all issues on merits are expressly kept open for final adjudication.
2) I have heard Mr. Pai, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3) It prima facie appears that the Respondent-Workman is
engaged on companionate basis after death of his father. His initial
engagement was on 26 February 2007. He has apparently utilized for
the last 19 long years. However, he is discontinued on 16 January 2026
in the light of pendency of reference demanding regularization.
4) Considering the above position, I do not find any valid reason
to interfere in the Interim Order of the Tribunal dated 15 May 2026.
The Order merely contemplates resumption of services by Respondent-
Workman on the same terms and conditions on which he was last
engaged. Therefore, if he was engaged on a temporary/ad-hoc/casual
basis, his continuation would be on the same terms and conditions.
5) I am therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned
order, Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 2___
18 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.