Namdev Yashwant Bhoir And Ors. vs The Executive Engineer And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4740 Bom

Bombay High Court

Namdev Yashwant Bhoir And Ors. vs The Executive Engineer And Ors. on 25 August, 2025

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Milind N. Jadhav

                                                                           23.WP.12320.18.doc

Ajay

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 12320 OF 2018

       Namdev Yashwant Bhoir and Ors.                              .. Petitioners
            Versus
       The Executive Engineer and Ors.                             .. Respondents

                                  ....................
        Mr. Ravindra B. Nair a/w. C.M. Lokesh Advocate for Petitioners.
        Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent - State.
                                           ....................

                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                           DATE        : AUGUST 25, 2025.

       P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Nair, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mrs.

Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent - State.

2. In the present Writ Petition, contesting Respondent are the

functionaries of the State Government namely the Irrigation

Department. Challenge in the present Petition is to the judgment and

order dated 31.03.2017 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.79 of2009.

3. Present Petition is heard for the first time today after a long

hiatus of 7 years after it being filed. Admittedly it is borne out from the

record that Petitioners were engaged in the work of measurement of

rainfall, water-level in the river, river flow and all allied and incidental

issues pertaining thereto during monsoon season every year for the last

more than 18 years before passing the impugned order dated

1 of 4

23.WP.12320.18.doc

31.03.2017 came to be passed. Though it is argued by Respondents

that their services were engaged only during the monsoon season,

record of the case prima facie speaks to the contrary as it is an

admitted position that all Petitioners before me have been completed

240 days in every calender year for which they were paid wages. It is

also borne out from record that initially Petitioners were issued

appointment orders intermittently by giving them an artificial brake

after every three months and were also paid salary/wages, but

subsequently appointment letters were not issued by Respondents but

services of Petitioners were continued regularly thereafter from year to

year. Basis of the impugned order prima facie is the ground that

Petitioners were engaged through a Contractor and therefore there

would exist no employer - employee relationship between the

Irrigation Department and Petitioners.

4. Oral and documentary evidence is before Labour Court is in

the form of deposition of Petitioners which prima facie shows that

appointment orders were placed on record by Petitioners which were

issued to them by Respondents and by virtue of which they were

originally engaged in direct employment of Respondents under regular

pay scale. Copies of evidence and deposition are appended at Exhibit

'C' of the Petition which prima facie relate to the above.

2 of 4

23.WP.12320.18.doc

5. Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP would submit that she will have

to take appropriate instructions and file Affidavit-in-Reply to oppose

the Petition. She would persuade the Court to grant one last

opportunity to the Respondents to file its reply.

6. Mr. Nair, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit that

admittedly Petitioners were employed initially directly by issuing

appointment letters to them in regular pay scale of Rs. 200 - 285 with

revision granted to them, but since Petitioners were simple people

namely local adivasi people staying in remote places in Taluka

Vikramgad, Respondents have taken undue advantage of their

simplicity, ignorance, illiteracy and poverty. He would submit that

Petitioners were engaged as workers in the river guage department

and worked as River Guage workers in Range Guage rather alongwith

similarly placed workers who were regular employees of the

Respondents. He would submit that Petitioners were engaged by the

Department of Hydrology Project Division, Kalwa as employees and in

view of they completing the statutory period of 240 days in every

calender year on year to year basis, they would be covered by the

benefit arising out of the provisions of Kalelkar Award and entitled to

permanency status.

7. Ms. Nimbalkar would also submit that there is an element of

delay. Be that as it may, at the request made by Ms. Nimbalkar,

3 of 4

23.WP.12320.18.doc

Respondents are permitted to file their Reply within a period of four

weeks today positively. No further time shall be granted.

8. It is clarified that if Affidavit-in-Reply is not filed by

Respondents, the present Petition shall be heard and decided on its

own merits since it is seen by the Court that there is substantial

material placed on record by Petitioners in the form of documentary

evidence before the learned Labour Court which can be considered by

this Court to determine the Petition. That apart it is seen that Petition

was filed in 2018 and has remained pending since then for 7 long

years for no fault of the Petitioners. Hence it is made clear that on the

next date, this Petition shall be decided after considering the affidavit

of Respondents and if not filed, then in accordance with law on the

basis of available record.

9. Stand over to 22nd September 2025 at 03:00 p.m.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Digitally signed by AJAY Ajay AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date:

2025.08.25 20:33:28 +0530

4 of 4