Bombay High Court
Suklal Jagannath Garud And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 5 February, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:2709-DB
7963.21wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2 WRIT PETITION NO. 7963 OF 2021
SUKLAL JAGANNATH GARUD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
....
Mr L. S. Mahajan, Advocate for Petitioners;
Mr S. B. Narwade, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1
Mr N. N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 5th February, 2024
PER COURT:
1. The Petitioners were before the learned Industrial
Court, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) Nos.23 to 34 of 2010. The
Industrial Court dismissed the Complaints by a Judgment dated
14/08/2015. These Petitioners were heard by the Single Judge
Bench on 30/11/2016 and the following order was passed :-
"12 In the light of the above, these Writ Petitions are
partly allowed with the following directions which shall be
followed by the Respondent/ Corporation in true spirit:-
(a) The Respondent/ Corporation shall continue to
maintain the list of Badli Workers based on
their seniority which is to be prepared
considering the first date of their engagement.
7963.21wp
(b) The Respondent/ Corporation shall continue to
offer the work as and when it is available to
these Badli Workers based on their seniority.
(c) Insofar as the Health, Sanitation and similar
Departments are concerned, the Respondent/
Corporation shall refrain from recruiting or
engaging fresh hands/ new faces in Class-IV
category by ignoring these Badli Workers.
(d) As and when the situation and occasion may
arise wherein the Respondent/ Corporation may
require more hands to be engaged for regular
work in the Health, Sanitation and similar
Departments in Class IV category, they shall
give preference to the Badli Workers whose
names are mentioned in the list on the basis of
their seniority.
(e) The impugned judgments of the Industrial
Court, therefore, stand modified in the above
terms.
2. We have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates for the respective sides. It is undisputed that, even
today, these Petitioners and several other similarly situated 'badli
workers' are working with the Respondent/Corporation as and
when the work is available, in the backdrop of the absence of the
permanent employees. We are informed that the Corporation has
few vacancies today.
7963.21wp
3. We are considering this Writ Petition in the light of
the fact that the Petitioners are working even today with the
Corporation as 'badli workers' since 1994/1999. For brevity, the
chart set out below paragraph No.3 in the pleadings would
indicate the entry of these Petitioners as 'badli workers'.
4. We are also informed that the Corporation has started
maintaining the registers of 'badli workers' under the directions of
the Court. No doubt, a 'badli worker' would not have an inherent
enforceable right to claim regularization in service, keeping in
view the definition of a 'badli worker' under the Model Standing
Orders framed under the Industrial Employment [Standing
Orders] Act, 1946. However, we are looking at this case from the
point of view of the length of the period, for which these workers
have been working with the Corporation. Some of them have
completed 30 years and are the 'badli workers' even today. The
minimum duration completed is 25 years. These 'badli workers'
are at beck and call of the Corporation. As is the admitted
position, they are working even today.
5. In view of the above, we direct the Respondent/
Corporation to prepare a proposal of all such 'badli workers',
7963.21wp
going by their seniority, in the light of Clause 12(d) of the order
dated 30/11/2016, reproduced above. All 'badli workers' would
figure in the said proposal going by their seniority. The proposal
would also contain the number of vacancies available with the
Corporation. Such proposal of all similarly situated 'badli
workers' shall be prepared within 30 days and shall be forwarded
to Respondent No.1/Urban Development Department, who would
consider the said proposal, depending upon vacancies available.
6. Since the learned Advocate for the Corporation has
informed us that, there are several 'daily wagers' working with the
Corporation even today, a proposal of the 'daily wagers' will also
be prepared and forwarded to Respondent No.1 within 30 days.
While considering such proposals, Respondent No.1 would
assess, as to whether any of the 'badli workers' can be said to be
working as 'daily wagers', if they are found to be continuously
and in the uninterrupted service of the Corporation. Needless to
state, the 'daily wagers' would be given first preference for
regularization and if permanent posts are still available and any
'badli worker' is found to be working continuously and in the
uninterrupted service, the direction set out in Clause 12 (d), would
be made applicable for considering such case for regularization.
7963.21wp
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
disposed off.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
Signed by: Sachin J Kulkarni
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/02/2024 15:14:28
