Recently, the Bombay High Court dealt with a matter concerning long-serving employees of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai, who had been engaged as daily wage workers in various capacities including labourers, watchmen, gardeners, and cooks. The Court held that these workers, having performed perennial work for decades alongside permanent employees, could not be denied the status of permanent workmen despite the State’s contention regarding non-availability of sanctioned posts. The Court observed that continued employment without granting permanency benefits amounts to unfair labour practice and exploitation.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners had been employed in Sanjay Gandhi National Park for several decades, performing high-risk and essential duties such as feeding wild animals, maintaining guest houses, patrolling, and general upkeep of the park. Despite continuous service, their claim for permanent status was repeatedly denied, and their Union’s complaint before the Industrial Court was dismissed. The workers filed writ petitions challenging the dismissal, seeking recognition as permanent employees along with associated benefits.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioners, through their counsel, contended that they had completed the requisite number of working days over multiple years, performed identical work as permanent employees, and were entitled to permanency under the Government Resolution and relevant labour laws. They argued that denial of permanency violated statutory rights and social security provisions.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, represented by its counsel, contended that the petitioners were temporary workers, not appointed against sanctioned posts, and their recruitment was irregular. It was submitted that the relevant Government Resolution applied only to earlier cohorts and that no sanctioned posts were available for accommodating the petitioners.
Observations of the Court:
The Court analyzed the submissions and observed that the petitioners’ work was of perennial nature, not tied to any temporary or employment guarantee scheme, and involved significant risk similar to that of permanent employees. Relying on previous decisions including The Deputy Conservator of Forest Nashik v. Vibhag (E), Conservator of Forests v. Savala Dhondiba Pise, and Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, the Court noted that irregular appointments could be regularized where work is continuous and posts are effectively available through statutory provisions.
The Court emphasized, “Once Petitioners have complied with the twin conditions of 240 days of work in each calendar year continuously for a period of 5 years and they are still being continued by the Forest Department for years together, they cannot be deprived of permanent status on the ground of unavailability of sanctioned post. If Government's argument is accepted, it would amount to enslavement of these workmen and bonded labour.”
It further observed that the Industrial Court did not err in declaring that the failure to grant wages and benefits constituted an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act. The nomenclature of their appointment as temporary or daily wage employees could not deprive them of statutory rights or the benefits of permanency.
The decision of the Court:
The Court quashed the Industrial Court’s dismissal and allowed the writ petitions. The petitioners were granted the status of permanent workmen, and the State was directed to compute and pay the differential wages due within a specified timeframe. The ULP Complaint stood allowed affirmatively on all issues framed by the Industrial Court.
Case Title: Rahul Pittu Savalkar and Ors. Vs. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition No..2683 of 2023
Coram: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vaishali Jagdale
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. J.P. Patil
Picture Source :
