Bombay High Court
Dr.A.T.Sherekar And Anr vs Murukesh Manikan And Ors on 27 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:10042
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4612 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Karpan Waity And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4613 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Solumuthu Sadian And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4607 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Murukesh Manikan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4608 OF 2006
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5511 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4608 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Laxman Krishnan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
MANE
SONALI
DILIP WRIT PETITION NO. 4609 OF 2006
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP
Date: 2025.03.04
10:37:08 +0530
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
___Page No.1 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Versus
Murukessh Ramswami And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4601 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chnaswami Arumugham And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4602 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sadian Karpan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ayyaswami Motian And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4605 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Bahu L. Patlekar And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4606 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Marimuthu Madhurai And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
___Page No.2 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WRIT PETITION NO. 4610 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Tanpal Arumughan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4598 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Shivkadu Nadesan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4611 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Kukkuswamy Munaswami And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4616 OF 2006
Dr.a.t. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ramanjan Swamikam And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4615 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Gunaji Naik And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4618 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Gangaram S. Patlekar And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.3 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4599 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Arogyadas Devid And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4614 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chnaswami Karpan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4600 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Karunanidhi Chnaswami And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4617 OF 2006
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5717 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4617 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Saroja Tangvel And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4748 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ayyamma Ayyaswami And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.4 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4744 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chnappa Kalyani And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4742 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Hari V. Kedekar And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4731 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
P. Pumali And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4732 OF 2006
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5504 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4732 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
K.H.Hamid And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4745 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Saroja Karpan And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.5 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4746 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chnappa Chnaswami And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4747 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Papa Dharman And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4751 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ramai Periswami And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4752 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ranjit R. Yadav And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4753 OF 2006
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14604 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4753 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Selvan G. Naidu And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.6 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4756 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Narayan Pawade And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4758 OF 2006
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14624 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4758 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
B.N.Baviskar And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4757 OF 2006
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 15495 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4757 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Periswami R. Muthu And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4729 OF 2006
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 15472 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4729 OF 2006
___Page No.7 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ramraj R. Yadav And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4738 OF 2006
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14608 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4738 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Jakappa Koli And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4733 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chnaswamy Sadian And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4750 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Jannabhai Shinde And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4734 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Devraj R. Swami And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4737 OF 2006
___Page No.8 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Kailash Yadav And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4749 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sadachi Narayan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4755 OF 2006
A.T.Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sopan R. Athawale And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4741 OF 2006
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14634 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4741 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dondappa Koli And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4735 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chnappan Sathyanathan And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4739 OF 2006
___Page No.9 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Vimal B. Shinde And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4740 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sakaram N. Gorud And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4730 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ayyaswami And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4743 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Anand Manikam And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4754 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Rajdev C. Yadav And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4736 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Manjan Muthu And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
___Page No.10 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WRIT PETITION NO. 5148 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Uttamkumar Perimal And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5147 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Arun Sapasai And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5150 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dinkar Satpal And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5144 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dayanand Muthu And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5145 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Vilas Bhuvad And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5202 OF 2013
Shri. Karpan Vaity And Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
Dr. S. J. Jagdish And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.11 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5151 OF 2006
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5517 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5151 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Eknath Aivali And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5153 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
B.D. Pawar And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5154 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ashok K. Bhandari And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Mohan S. Kulye And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5141 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Vijay S. Birje And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.12 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5146 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Kishore B. Kulye And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5152 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Suryakant S. Nandgoankar And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5143 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ramesh B. Dawde And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5142 OF 2006
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14640 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5142 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Pandu R. Uumersade ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5798 OF 2006
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5717 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5798 OF 2006
___Page No.13 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Indira Kadam And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5799 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Jaisingh H. Kamble And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Mahendra J.adsul And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6201 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Prakash Rathi And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6199 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Shridhar S. Bhuvad And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6200 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Arun G. Gawade And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.14 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6197 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dilip T. Kandangle And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6198 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Uttam G. Gawade And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6193 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ronald O. Vengas And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6194 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Rajendra S. Devrukar And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6195 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Eknath S. Birde And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6196 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
___Page No.15 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Anil A. Patil And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6192 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Raju S. Salve And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7033 OF 2006
Dr. A.T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sanjay B. Sawant And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7055 OF 2006
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14583 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7055 OF 2006
Dr. A.T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Babu S. Kamble And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7054 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Lahu D. Waigoankar And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7053 OF 2006
Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Udaychandra Chavhan And Ors. ...Respondents
___Page No.16 of 34___
27 February 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:24:48 :::
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Mr. Arun R. Patil (through V.C.) with Ms. Divya Wadekar, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Purav-Yajurvedi, for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. O. Mohandas with J. P. Kapadia i/b Little & Co., for the
Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 27 FEBRUARY 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1) These Petitions challenge judgment and order dated
5 March 2005 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in
Complaints of unfair labour practices filed by 82 daily rated
employees working with the Petitioner-University seeking the benefit
of permanency and other consequential benefits. By the impugned
judgment and order, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has
directed that the benefit of permanency can be granted only as and
when permanent vacant posts become available and has accordingly
directed the Petitioner-University to absorb the 82 daily rated
workers against permanent available vacancies, as and when they
arise. In the interregnum, the learned Member has directed
conferment of same benefits on daily rated workers on par with
'permanent daily rated employees' from the dates of completion of
240 days of service by them.
2) Petitioner No. 1 is the then Vice Chancellor of
Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, having its
___Page No.17 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
Head Office at Nagpur and Petitioner No. 2 was the then Associate
Dean of the Veterinary College Parel, Mumbai. The Maharashtra
Animal and Fishery Sciences University (University) is established
under the provisions of Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences
University Act, 1998. The University has established the Veterinary
College at Parel, Mumbai as well as Dairy Farm at Goregaon,
Mumbai. The College as well as the Dairy Farm had employed
several regular employees for carrying out their respective activities.
It appears that with a view to take care of exigency of additional
work, daily rated workers were employed in the College and the
Farm by the University from time to time. Such daily rated workers
were being paid daily wages as opposed to payment of salaries and
allowances to permanent class IV employees as per the pay
commissions. It was the grouse of the daily rated workers that they
were being paid paltry daily wages at the rate of Rs.51/- per day,
whereas permanent class IV employees in the College were drawing
basic pay of Rs.2,550/- + other allowances as per the 5 th pay
commission recommendations. The details of dates of initial
engagements of the 82 daily rated workers are as under:
Sr. Name Designation Date of Joining
No.
1 Shri Karpan Vality Labour 10.09.82
2 Shri Solumuthu Sadian Labour 01.01.83
3 Shri Murukesh Manikan Labour 01.04.83
4 Shri Laxman Krishnan Labour 14.03.83
5 Shri Murukesh Ramwami Labour 01.07.85
6 Shri Chinnaswmi Arumugham Labour 02.05.83
7 Shri Sadian Karpan Labour 01.06.85
8 Shri Ayyaswami Motian Labour 01.02.86
9 Shri Bahu L. Patlekar Labour 17.12.85
10 Shri Marimuthu Madhurai Labour 05.04.85
11 Shri Tanpal Arumugham Labour 01.01.85
12 ShriShinkadu Nadesan Labour 01.07.86
13 Shri Kukkuswami Munaswami Labour 01.01.85
14 Shri Ramanjan Swamikam Labour 01.02.85
15 Shri Gunaji Naik Labour 01.12.86
___Page No.18 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
16 Shri Gangaram S. Patlekar Labour 01.01.87
17 Shri Arogyadas Devid Labour 09.08.85
18 Shri Chinnaswami Karpan Labour 01.07.87
19 Shri Karunanidhi Chinnaswami Labour 01.07.89
20 Smt Saroja Tangvel Labour 10.02.84
21 Smt Chinnappa Kalyani Labour 10.09.83
22 Smt Saroja Karpan Labour 10.09.83
23 Smt Chinnapon Chinnaswami Labour 10.09.83
24 Smt Papa Dharman Labour 10.01.84
25 Smt Ayyamma Ayswami Labour 13.05.85
26 Smt Sadachi Narayan Labour 01.11.86
27 Smt Jonnadhai Shinde Labour 01.04.88
28 Smt Ramai Periswami Labour 01.10.88
29 Shri Ramjet R. Yadav Labour 02.05.74
30 Shri Selvan G. Naidu Labour 25.11.74
31 Shri Rajdev C. Yadav Labour 01.01.76
32 Shri Sopan R. Athwale Labour 02.02.77
33 Shri Narayan Pawade Labour 01.05.77
34 Shri Periswami R. Muthu Labour 02.01.76
35 Shri B. N. Baviskar Labour 05.06.76
36 Shri Ramraj R. Yadav Labour 03.05.74
37 Shri Ayyaswami Labour 01.05.79
38 Shri P. Pumali Labour 01.01.80
39 Shri K. Н. Hamid Labour 24.05.78
40 Shri Chinnaswami Sadian Labour 01.01.79
41 Shri Devraj R. Swami Labour 01.01.80
42 Shri Hari V. Kedekar Labour 01.01.80
43 Shri Manjan Muthu Labour 24.06.80
44 Shri Kailash Yadav Labour 11.01.80
45 Shri Jakapра Koli Labour 18.02.82
46 Shri Sakaram N. Gorud Labour 01.02.82
47 Shri Dondappa Koli Labour 08.03.82
48 Smt Vimal B. Shinde Labour 01.01.83
49 Shri Chinnapaan Sathyanathan Labour 08.01.84
50 Shri Anand Manikam Labour 25.04.84
51 Shri Arun Sapasai Labour 04.06.84
52 Shri Dinkar Satpal Labour 14.01.85
53 Shri Dayanand Muthu Labour 03.04.85
54 Shri Vilas Bhuvad Labour 04.01.90
55 Shri Uttamkumar Perimal Labour 01.12.86
56 Shri Kishore B. Kulye Sweeper 08.07.91
57 Shri B.D. Pawar Sweeper 05.09.86
58 Shri Eknath Aivali Vehicle Claen 28.07.87
59 Shri Vijay s. Birje Sweeper 18.09.90
60 Shri Ramesh B. Dawde Sweeper 15.09.83
61 Shri Suryakant S. Nandgaonkar Sweeper 13.08.81
62 Shri Pandu R. Umersade Sweeper 01.01.86
63 Shri Ashok K. Bhandori Poen 17.04.86
64 Shri Mohan S. Kulye Driver 15.12.84
65 Shri Mahendra J. Adsul Sweeper 08.01.89
66 Smt Indira Kadam Sweeper 18.01.86
67 Shri Jaisingh H. Kamble Peon 09.04.86
68 Shri Uttam G. Gawade Poen 12.10.86
___Page No.19 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
69 Shri Shridhar S. Bhuvad Librarian 14.09.90
70 Shri Dilip T. Kandangle Sweeper 06.07.83
71 Shri Arun G. Gawade Watchman 19.02.85
72 Shri Prakash Rathi Sweeper 06.07.87
73 Shri Ronald O. Vengas Poen 22.11.87
74 Shri Anil A. Patil Poen 27.10.86
75 Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Plumber 17.11.90
76 Shri Raju S. Salve Sweeper 14.09.87
77 Shri Shantaram L. Jadhav Plumber 04.08.84
78 Shri Rajendra S. Devrukar Sports Helper 26.09.86
79 Shri Eknath S. Birde Tel. Op. 21.04.84
80 Shri Layan D. Waigaonkar Sweeper 03.01.86
81 Shri Babu S. Kamble Attendant 132.09.84
82 Shri Udaychandra Chuhan Sweeper 29.04.83
3) After working for substantial years of service on daily
wage basis, and possibly continuously, 82 daily rated workers
decided to adopt legal remedies for claiming permanency in the
services of the College. They accordingly filed 82 Complaints of
unfair labour practices before Industrial Court, Mumbai in the year
2000. In those Complaints, prayer was made for permanency from
the date of completion of continuous service of 240 days. Another
prayer for payment of difference of wages on par with 'permanent
daily rated employees' employed in Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon
retrospectively from 1991 was also prayed in the said Complaints.
The Complaints were resisted by the Petitioner-University and
College, raising preliminary issue of they not being an 'industry' as
well as denying existence of any employer-employee relationship.
Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After
considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the
learned Member of the Industrial Court proceeded to allow all 82
Complaints and directed the Petitioner-University and College to
treat all the Complainants on par with "permanent daily rated wage
workers" and to give them all benefits of permanent daily rated
workers, till sanction of the post by the Government with effect from
the date of completion of 240 days service in a year. It was further
___Page No.20 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
directed that upon sanction of posts by the Government, the
Complainants shall be made permanent by absorbing them if they
are found eligible as per their seniority. Petitioner-University and
College have filed a present Petitions challenging the judgment and
orders dated 5 March 2005. By order dated 20 December 2006, this
Court admitted the Petitions and directed parties to maintain
status-quo till disposal of the Petitions. The Petitions are called out
for final hearing.
4) Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner-University and the College would submit that the learned
Member of the Industrial Court has grossly erred in directing
conferment of benefits on par with 'permanent daily rated wage
workers' to the Respondents. He would submit that there is no such
concept as 'permanent daily rated wage workers'. He would submit
that the Respondent did not perform same duties and
responsibilities as that of permanent Class IV employees of the
University and the College. That no evidence was led to prove
similarity in the duties and responsibilities. That engagement of the
Respondent-Employees was not continuous, and they were
intermittently utilised as per the exigencies of work. He would
submit that no right was created in favour of Respondent-Employees
to claim permanency merely on the strength of completion of 240
days of service. He would rely upon judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in Municipal Council Tirora & Anr. Vs. Tulsidas
Baliram Bindhade1 in support of his contention that mere
completion of 240 days of service in a State Instrumentality does not
create a right to claim permanency in service.
2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867
___Page No.21 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
5) So far as the direction for payment of benefits on par
with permanent workers is concerned, he would submit that similar
issue had reached Apex Court in Marathwada Agricultural
University & others. Vs. Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith,
M.S.K.S. and others2 in which the Apex Court has directed
constitution of committee for consideration of equivalence of duties
and responsibilities. He would submit that the committee so
constituted by the Apex Court gave report recommending that the
duties and responsibilities performed by the daily rated workers
were not on par with the permanent employees of the University and
the claim for equal pay for equal wages was declined. He would
invite my attention to order dated 2 May 2012 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2516
of 2010 Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Karmchari
Union Vs. State of Maharashtra and another by which Petition
challenging said recommendations of the committee came to be
dismissed. He would submit that the orders passed by Apex Court
and by Division Bench of this Court in Marathwada Krishi
Vidyapeeth (supra) would squarely apply to the present case as
well. He would submit that there is no warrant for payment of equal
pay to the Respondents-Workers since there is vast difference in the
duties and responsibilities performed by them as compared to the
duties and responsibilities of regular Class IV employees.
6) Mr. Patil would however clarify that in pursuance of
clause (5) of the operative portion of the order passed by the
Industrial Court, the Petitioner-University has progressively
considered the cases of daily rated workers for absorption. He would
submit that by now, 36 out of the 82 workers have already been
(2007) 8 SCC 497
___Page No.22 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
absorbed in service, 10 have unfortunately passed away, 12 have
retired and 15 continued to work with the university/college. He
would submit that since the university/college has adopted policy of
progressive regularization depending on availability of vacancies,
the direction for payment of wages on par with permanent employees
cannot be sustained and remaining workers will have to wait till
vacancies arise for their absorption. He would accordingly pray for
setting aside the judgment and order dated 5 March 2005 passed by
the Industrial Court.
7) The Petition is opposed by Ms. Purav-Yajurvedi, the
learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Workers. She would
submit that the Respondent-Workers were engaged by the Petitioner-
University/College right since early eighties and by the time they
approached the Industrial Court, they had put in 15 to 20 years of
service. That their services were being exploited by paying them
paltry sums towards daily wages while extracting same work as
performed by regular Class IV employees. That therefore the
Industrial Court has directed payment of same wages to the
Respondent-Workers on par with regular Class IV employees from
the date of completion of 240 days of service. She would rely upon
judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs.
Jagjit Singh and others3, in support of her contention that all
daily rated or temporary workers must be paid wages in the
minimum of the payscale extended to the regular employees of the
establishment. She would submit that the directions issued by the
Industrial Court are in consonance with the law enunciated by the
Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra).
(2017) 1 SCC 148
___Page No.23 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
8) Ms. Purav-Yajurvedi would dispute the figures quoted by
Mr. Patil with regard to absorption of the Respondents. She would
submit that many of the Respondent-Workers have unfortunately
passed away before their regularization and their legal heirs are
without any pensionary benefits. She would submit that even in
respect of those workers who are shown have been absorbed in
service, pensionary benefits are denied to them. She would submit
that several workers are still awaiting their absorption in service.
She would therefore submit that no interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court. She
would pray for dismissal of the Petitions.
9) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
10) It must be observed at the very outset that the operative
directions issued by the Industrial Court appear to be somewhat
confusing. What is granted in favour of the Respondents-Workers in
paragraph 4 of the operative directions is to treat them on par with
'permanent daily rated wage workers' and to give them all benefits of
permanent daily rated workers till sanction of posts by the
Government with effect from completion of 240 days of service in a
year. To my mind, there can be no concept such as 'permanent daily
rated wage workers'. A permanent employee in government service
cannot be paid on daily wage basis. Permanent employee in the
government is entitled to draw salary and allowances in the pay-
scales recommended by the pay commissions. Therefore, there is no
concept such as 'permanent daily rated wage workers'. In some of the
Government services, there have been concepts of paying regular
salaries to casual or temporary workers, where they are placed in a
___Page No.24 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
category better than mere casual workers, but are still not
regularized in services. Examples of such concepts are (i)
conferment of 'temporary status' envisaged for casual laboueres
employed in the departments of Central Government vide OM dated
10 September 1993, (ii) Converted Regular Temporary
Establishment (CRTE) as per the Kalelkar Award, etc. The learned
Member of the Industrial Court may have similar concept in the
mind while giving directions for payment of wages of 'permanent
daily rated wage workers'. However, the language employed by the
Court in paragraph 4 of the operative portion of the order does not
bear out that the Respondents are directed to be extended same
wages on par with regular Class IV employees of the
University/College. The directions at times seek to the suggest as if
what is granted in favour of Respondents-Workers is the benefit of
permanency with effect from completion of 240 days of service.
However, in paragraph 5 of the operative directions, permanency is
directed to be granted only upon availability of vacant sanctioned
posts by the State Government. This would essentially mean that
the direction in paragraph 4 of the order does not mean conferment
of status of permanency. The direction therefore will have to be
construed to mean payment of wages on par with regular employees
of the University/College.
11) The law with regard to equal pay for equal work for
temporary/casual/ad hoc/daily rated workers employed by Central
and State Governments and their instrumentalities is no longer res-
integra. In Jagjit Singh (supra) the Apex Court took stock of the
entire law on the subject and has ruled that all the temporary
employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the
payscale extended to regular employees holding the same posts. It
___Page No.25 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
would be opposite to reproduce paragraphs 57 to 61 of the judgment
in Jagjit Singh which read thus:
57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of "equal pay for
equal work" has emerged from an interpretation of different
provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded
through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and
constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the
courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The
parameters of the principle have been summarised by us in para 42
hereinabove. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has also
been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-
charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The
legal position, relating to temporary employees has been summarised
by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has
been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the
same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same
duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an
action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of
human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage
does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to
his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his
self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his
dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser
wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly
situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out
of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,
suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same
is reproduced below:
"7. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable
conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value
without distinction of any kind, in particular women being
guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men,
with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance
with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his
employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no
considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
___Page No.26 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public
holidays."
(emphasis supplied)
India is a signatory to the above Covenant having ratified the same on 10-4-1979.
There is no escape from the above obligation in view of different provisions of the
Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of "equal pay for
equal work" constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every
employee--whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.
60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application
of the principle of "equal pay for equal work", in relation to temporary
employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed
on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that
requires our determination is, whether the employees concerned (before
this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were
being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding
posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the
principle of "equal pay for equal work" summarised by us in para 42 above.
However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not
difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was
fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of
Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals
were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular
cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the course of their
employment, the temporary employees concerned were being randomly
deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in
time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees
holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work
which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is,
therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities
discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were
the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case
of the appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess the
qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it
is not the case of the State that any of the temporary employees would not
be entitled to pay parity on any of the principles summarised by us in para
42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for
equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned,
so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum
of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the
same post.
61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we
have no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned,
in the present bunch of cases would be entitled to draw wages at the
minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale),
extended to regular employees holding the same post.
___Page No.27 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
12) In my view the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit
Singh is an authoritative pronouncement on the issue of extension
of principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to the temporary employees
engaged by the Government and its Instrumentalities.
13) The law expounded Jagjit Singh (supra) was reiterated
by the Apex Court in Sabha Shankar Dube V/s Divisional Forest
Officer and others4 in which it is held as under:
"10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is
whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees,
employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise)
are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their
performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on
regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judg-
ments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Sur-
jit Singh (supra) this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to
draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the
regular employees holding the same post.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to up-
hold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not enti-
tled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to
adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of
their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this
Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly
situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that
temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as
they continue in service."
14) In fact, towards implementation of the law enunciated by
the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh the Central Government has issued
Office Memoranda from time to time directing its department to
extend minimum of payscale to the temporary workers engaged in
all departments in pursuance of various orders passed by Delhi High
Court. In Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Vs. State of
Maharashtra5 speaking for the Division Bench, I have referred to
2019 (12) SCC 297
(2022) 6 Bom CR63
___Page No.28 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
those orders of Delhi High Court and OM of Central Government, as
under:
13. We may also refer to Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt
Ltd. v. Chief Patron/Vice President/General Secretary, Central
Warehousing Corporation Majdoor Union, 2019 SCC OnLine Del
10318 in which Delhi High Court has passed series of orders directing
the Central Government to implement the directions in Jagjit
Singh (supra) in respect of all casual labourers and contract workers
engaged by the Central Government and PSUs. In Order dated
16th September 2019, the Delhi High Court has reproduced various
Office Memoranda issued by the Central Government Ministries. Since
various OM are culled out in that order, we deem it appropriate to
reproduce the order at the cost of making this judgment lengthy. The
Order reads thus:
"3. Vide order dated 28th March, 2019, Central Government was
directed to file a status report on affidavit as to whether all
Government Departments/PSUs/Corporations under the Central
Government including CWC are complying with the law declared
by the Supreme Court inJagjit Singh, (supra). Para 25 of the order
dated 28th March, 2019 is reproduced hereunder:
XXXX
14. Thus, towards implementation of Jagjit Singh (supra), the Central
Government has already issued instructions to its Ministries and
PSUs that where the nature of work performed by causal workers is
same as that of regular employees, wages at the minimum of the
payscale are required to be paid. Thus it is now a settled law that the
employees who are not regular, irrespective of their nomenclature such
as 'Temporary, Work Charge, Daily Wage, Casual, Ad-hoc or Contract
Basis,' are required to be granted minimum of pay scale at the lowest
grade of regular pay scale as extended to the regular employees
holding the same post.
15. We may also make useful reference to the case of Ambulance
Drivers engaged by various Zilla Parishads through Contractors. Such
Ambulance Drivers have filed series of petitions before this Court
seeking wages at the minimum of payscale relying on the judgment in
Jagjit Singh. It is pertinent to note that the Ambulance Drivers are
engaged through contractors and not directly by Zilha Parishads.
In Dhiraj S/o. Sudhakarrao Wankhede v. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
Writ Petition No. 2247 of 2014 decided on 20.11.2019, this Court held
that such Ambulance drivers are entitled to be paid wages at the
minimum of the payscale. The decision in Dhiraj Wankhede (supra)
was followed by this Court in Ashok Dhondiba Meher v. Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur. That judgment came to
be assailed by the Zilla Parishad, Solapur before the Apex Court in
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8395 of 2021, Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Solapur. v. Ashok Dhondiba Meher By its order
dated 23.03.2022 the Apex Court upheld the decision of this Court
___Page No.29 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
relying upon the judgment in Jagjit Singh(Supra). The Apex Court
held that,
"10. In the above circumstance, it is noticed that in the present
facts the only relief granted by the High Court to the private
respondents herein is to be paid the wages at the minimum of the
pay-scale at lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale extended to the
regular employees holding the same post. The said benefit ordered
to be extended is in tune with the observations of this Court
in Jagjit Singh (supra). Further, in the instant facts what cannot
be overlooked is also that the private respondents though employed
through the contractors are discharging the onerous duties of
driving the ambulance which is operated to provide the benefit of
public health to the citizens in the PHC's under the Zilla Parishad
which in turn is for discharging the obligation of the State.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the minimum relief that has
been granted by the High Court would not call for interference. We
at this juncture also take note of the fact that the judgment dated
20.11.2019 passed by the coordinate bench of the High Court
in Dhiraj S. Wankhede (supra), relied upon by the High Court in
the instant case had been assailed before this Court in a Special
Leave Petition (Civil) bearing Diary No. 12195/2020. However, the
Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by this Court on
22.02.2021."
16. Thus extension of payscale to Ambulance Drivers is upheld by the
Apex Court, even though they are not appointed by Zilha Parishads
but by contractors.
15) Thus payment of wages in the minimum of payscale of
regular employees to the casual/temporary workers is now a norm
and I do not see any reason why any departure needs to be made in
the present case.
16) In my view, therefore if the operative direction number 4
in the impugned judgment dated 5 March 2005 is construed to mean
payment of wages on par with regular employees of the
University/College, the same would be in consonance with the law
expounded by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh. The only
clarification that would be needed is that such payment will have to
be made in the minimum of the payscale extended to the regular
___Page No.30 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
employees as temporary employees are not permitted to draw yearly
increments.
17) Mr. Patil's reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Marathwada Agricultural Universities (supra) does not cut any
ice. The case before the Apex Court arose out of direct writ petitions
filed before this Court claiming equal pay for equal wages. In the
facts of that case, the Apex Court had directed conduct of factual
enquiry through a committee to evaluate the duties and
responsibilities of daily rated workers engaged by the Marathwada
Agricultural University. The committee apparently submitted a
report containing following recommendations:
"13) FINAL CONCLUSION:
In view of the above discussion since there is nothing on record
before the committee that MKV, Parbhani is paying less wages
than the prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as is
applicable in the State and that the Government is taking
advantage of its dominant position and forcing the concerned
workers to work in starvation wages and also that the principle of
equal pay for equal work is applicable or the daily-wagers
concerned have any executable legal right to claim any parity with
any other group of permanently employed workers or skilled, semi-
skilled daily-wagers, the committee is not in position to frame any
scheme on the basis of available pleadings of the parties and
number of relevant case laws of the Supreme Court on record
before the committee."
18) It appears that on account of factual findings recorded in
that case, that the daily rated workers were not performing same
duties and responsibilities as that of regular employees of M.K.V
Parbhani, the Division Bench of this Court was persuaded to dismiss
the Writ Petition No. 2516 of 2010 challenging the committee's
recommendations.
___Page No.31 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
19) In the present case, there is factual inquiry committed
by the Industrial Court into the similarity of work. After evaluating
the evidence on record the Industrial Court has recorded finding of
fact that duties and responsibilities are on par. In exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court
is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record and set aside
a finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Court. I am therefore, not
inclined to go into the issue of factual dispute with regard to
similarity in the duties and responsibilities. Also of relevance is the
fact that the Petitioner-University has ultimately regularised the
services of 36 out of 82 workers. If indeed those workers were not to
perform same duties and responsibilities as that of permanent
employees, the University would not have regularised their services.
This is yet another reason why this Court is not inclined to accept
the contention of the Petitioner-University that there is any
difference in the duties and responsibilities performed by daily rated
workers as compared to the one performed by regular class IV
employees.
20) In my view therefore, ends of justice would meet in the
present case if direction No. 4 in the operative portion of the
Industrial Court's order is clarified to mean that the Petitioner-
University/ College shall pay to the 82 Respondent-Workers pay in
the minimum of payscale applicable to regular Class IV employees at
the relevant time. In my view, such payment will have to be made
from the date of the judgment and order dated 5 March 2005 passed
by the Industrial Court so as to reduce the financial burden on the
public exchequer. Thus, all the Respondent-Workers would be
entitled to be paid difference in the wages actually drawn by them
and the one payable to them in the minimum of payscale applicable
___Page No.32 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
to Class IV employees of the University with effect from 5 March
2005 till the date of their regularization, retirement, death etc. This
in my view, would draw curtains on the long-standing litigation that
has ensued between the parties and the Respondents-Workers who
have rendered substantial years of service and those who could not
get absorbed in service, ultimately receive some justice.
21) So far as the direction for regularization is concerned,
many of the Respondent-Workers are already regularised and the
rest shall be considered for regularization as and when regular
vacancies are created in terms of paragraph 5 of the impugned
judgment and order.
22) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
i) Judgment and order dated 5 March 2005 passed by the
Member Industrial Court, Mumbai is modified to the extent that the
Respondent-Workers shall be entitled to be paid difference in the
wages actually drawn by them and the wages payable to them in the
minimum of the payscale extended to regular Class IV employees of
the University with effect from 5 March 2005 till the dates of their
respective absorption, death, retirement etc.
(ii) The direction for regularization shall continue in respect of
those who are yet to be regularized, who shall be considered for
regularization as and when vacancies arise/sanctioned as directed by
the Industrial Court.
___Page No.33 of 34___
27 February 2025
Sonali Mane 10-WP-4612-2006.docx
iii) The Petitioner-University shall send a proposal to the State
Government for sanction of difference in the amount of wages as
directed above within 4 weeks and the State Government, shall
sanction the same in an expeditious manner, preferably within 8
weeks of receipt of the proposal.
(iv) The arrears of pay and allowances arising out of the above
directions shall be paid to the concerned Respondent-Workers within
a period of four months from today.
23) With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are partly
allowed. Rule is made partly absolute in each of the Petitions.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.34 of 34___
27 February 2025
