Bombay High Court
Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhari North ... vs Kishor Digambar Gadhe And Others on 11 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:15094
1 wp 4274.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4274 OF 2025
1. Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhari,
North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon.
2. Vice Chancellor,
Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhary,
North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon.
3. Registrar,
Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhary,
North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. Petitioners.
(Orig Resp 1 to 3)
VERSUS
1. Kishor Digambar Gadhe
age 56 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Rembhote, Tq. Raver,
District Jalgaon.
2. Premraj Bhimrao Baviskar,
age 47 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Jaihind Colony, Shirpur,
Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule.
3. Anna Ananda Sonawane,
age 52 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Ahire, Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon.
4. Shashikant Gulabrao Chavan,
age 50 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Anjan Vihire, Taluka Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon.
5. Vishwanath Babulal Thakare,
age 52 yrs, Occ. Service,
2 wp 4274.25.odt
R/o Morane, Tq. & Dist Dhule.
6. Bhagwat Dadaji Patil,
age 48 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Maheji Tq. Pachora, Dist Jalgaon.
7. Krushna Raghunath Badgujar,
age 48 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Kadholi, Tq. Erandol,
District Jalgaon.
8. Yuvraj Arjun Patil,
age 46 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Kadholi, Tq. Erandol,
District Jalgaon.
9. Vijay Shantaram Mali,
age 49 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Lasur, Tq. Chopda,
District Jalgaon.
10. Vilas Ashok Baviskar,
age 52 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
District Jalgaon.
11. Rajendra Narayan Mahale,
age 52 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Shelwad, Tq. Bodwad,
District Jalgaon.
12. Bhikan Kashinath Umare,
age 68 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Vaijnath, Tq. Erandol,
District Jalgaon.
13. Manjoor Mansoor Shaikh,
age 52 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Aksa Nagar, Mehrun,
Tq. & District Jalgaon.
14. Manohar Baban Patil,
age 56 yrs, Occ. Service,
3 wp 4274.25.odt
R/o Anjan Vihire, Tq. Dharangaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
15. Rajendra Vasantrao Patil,
age 56 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o c/o Shri Sanju Shalik Patil,
Plot No.6, Gut no.347/1, Shriram Samarth
Colony, Pimprala Shivar, Near Manav Seva School,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
16. Joint Director,
Higher and Technical Education,
Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon
Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran Building,
First Floor, Jalgoan, Dist. Jalgaon.
17. Director of Education (Higher Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Pune.
18. Chief Secretary,
The State of Maharashtra,
Higher & Technical Education,
Department, Mantralaya, Vistar Bhavan,
Mumbai. Respondents/
No.1to15 orig complainants
Resp 16 to 18 orig resp no.3 to 6.
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. R. Patil
Advocate for Respondents 1 to 15 : Mr. V. B. Patil
AGP for Respondents 16 to 18 : Mr. P D Patil
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : June 11, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent
of the parties, matter is heard finally at admission stage.
4 wp 4274.25.odt
2. Petitioners impugns the order dated 13.3.2025
passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon below Exhibit U-15 in
complaint ULP no.22 of 2024 by which petitioners are directed
to provide work to respondents from 1.4.2025 to 15.11.2025.
3. Respondent nos.1 to 15 filed complaint ULP No.22
of 2024 under item nos.5,6,9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for short said Act) before the
Industrial Court, Jalgaon, contending that, they have been
working on daily wages with Petitioner University since 1995
as Hamal/helper/peon and there exists employer-employee
relationship between them. On 21.8.2015 University passed a
Resolution and decided to provide work to them on contract
system. Therefore, they filed proceeding before Industrial
Court seeking relief of permanency in service. Meanwhile,
enraged by action of respondents, University passed Resolution
dated 10.12.2024 not to provide work to respondent nos.1 to
15. It is, therefore, contended that University is guilty of unfair
Labour Practice and filed an application seeking interim relief
under section 30(2) of the said act for directions against
University to provide them work for 11 months as per clause 4
5 wp 4274.25.odt
of the Resolution dated 21.8.2015 and protection of their
services.
4. University appeared before the Industrial Tribunal
and refuted claim of petitioners contending that complaint is
barred by limitation. Respondent nos.1 to 15 had previously
instituted complaint ULP no.53 of 2003 and 28 of 2003
seeking regularization of their services, which has been
unconditionally withdrawn. Hence, present complaint ULP is
hit by principles of resjudicata. It is further contention of the
University that respondent nos.1 to 15 were contractual
employees for fixed term as per resolution dated 21.8.2015.
They committed breach of conditions of contractual
appointment. Hence, they are not entitled for any relief. It is
further contention of University that complaint ULP is not
maintainable before Industrial Court against the University as
University is not 'Industry' as defined under Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. After considering rival contentions, Industrial Court
decided interim application filed below Exhibit U-15 and
directed University to provide work to the respondent nos.1 to
15 from 1.4.2025 to 15.11.2025 as per Resolution dated
21.8.2015.
6 wp 4274.25.odt
5. Mr. S.R. Patil, learned advocate appearing for
petitioners submits that respondent nos.1 to 15 were
contractual employees for fixed period. Their appointments
are governed by stipulations under resolution dated 21.8.2015
passed by University, which has effect of agreement between
the parties. Respondent nos.1 to 15 have agreed to work as
per terms of resolution on contractual basis and cannot claim
permanency. He submits that employment was provided to
skilled/unskilled daily wagers on contract basis as per
negotiations and deliberations between the parties.
Appointments are not against substantive sanctioned posts.
Hence, employees do not have right of regularization or
permanency in service. Mr. Patil, learned advocate appearing
for petitioners would further submit that term of contractual
appointment of respondent nos.1 to 15 is expired which has
effect of termination of their service. The Industrial Court
cannot grant relief of reinstatement under the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Similarly, complaint itself is not
tenable as University does not fall within the meaning of
Industry. Mr. Patil, would rely upon observations of this Court
in case of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and
another Vs. Hon'ble Member and others reported in (2016) 2
7 wp 4274.25.odt
Mh.L.J. 454 to contend that the respondents-employees have
no right to seek regularization on post which fall within
domain of public employment in absence of appointment
through proper channel.
6. Per contra, Mr. V.B. Patil, learned advocate
appearing for respondents/employee vehemently submits that
as on date of filing of complaint, petitioners were in service in
terms of agreement. The petitioners are continuously in service
since 1995, however, they are deprived of regularization of
service and benefit of permanency. Mr. V.B. Patil, would submit
that Industrial Court is empowered to entertain the application
under section 30(2) of the Act and protect conditions of service
of employees during pendency of proceeding before Court. He
would submit that now it is well settled that University falls
within the meaning of 'Industry' and Industrial Court is
empowered to grant relief to employees like the petitioners.
Therefore, jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under MRTP and
PULP Act is very much available for redressal of grievances of
the respondents/employees.
7. Having considered submissions advanced, it can
be observed that, services of respondents/employees have been
8 wp 4274.25.odt
availed by the University since 1995 on various posts like
Hamal, Helper and Peon. On 21.8.2015 University passed a
Resolution and decided to provide work to respondents and
similarly situated employees on contract system for 11 months
by giving technical break of four days. Services of the
respondents/employees were availed in light of the aforesaid
policies. Respondents/employees approached Industrial Court
by filing the complaint ULP No.22 of 2024 seeking relief of
regularization of services and benefit of permanency. It
appears that the respondent/University passed a Resolution
dated 10.12.2024 to not to allot work to
respondents/employees as they approached Court seeking
regularization, which led to filing application for grant of
interim relief. The Industrial Court allowed application Exhibit
U-15 observing that Respondents/employees have been denied
employment only because they approached Court, whereas
similarly situated other employees have been retained in
service. List of those employees is placed on record of
Industrial Court at Exhibit C-10.
8. Perusal of record shows that on the date when
complaint ULP 22 of 2024 was filed, respondents/employees
9 wp 4274.25.odt
were in service as per agreement dated 11.1.2024 and their
term was yet to expire. Respondent/University in a meeting
dated 3.2.2024 decided to not to allot work to
respondents/employees. Apparently, respondents/employees
are victimized alleging that they have flouted conditions of
contract. In this background, Industrial Court is justified in
exercising jurisdiction under section 30(2) read with section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and direct petitioners to
continue services of respondents/employees from 1.4.2025 to
15.11.2025.
9. Although, Mr. Sandesh Patil, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners would submit that
respondents/employees would not be entitled to claim relief of
regularization of services or permanency as post held by them
under contractual employment falls within domain of public
employment, such an issue can be dealt with at the time of
final hearing of complaint. Even, in matter of of Rashtrasant
Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (supra) relied by the
petitioners, this Court had issued directions to University to
take steps to advertise the posts and consider claim of
employees who have been working since long by giving age
10 wp 4274.25.odt
relaxation. It is, therefore, clear that respondents/employees
cannot be thrown out or kept away from continuity of service
only because they approached Court seeking regularization of
services.
10. Even, perusal of impugned order, it is eminent that
University is directed to provide work to the
respondents/employees from 1.4.2025 to 15.11.2025, which is
in consonance with Resolution passed by the University dated
21.8.2015. As such, there is no prejudice to the University.
11. So far as point as to maintainability of the
complaint on the ground that University cannot be given status
of industry, such an issue is elaborately considered and
answered by this Court in case of Mumbai Vidyapeeth Kamgar
Sanghtana Vs. University of Mumbai (Writ Petition No.2976 of
2018). The observations made therein are prima facie
sufficient to negate contentions of petitioners as to
maintainability of the complaint before Industrial Court.
12. In the result, respondents/employees have made
out prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The learned
Industrial Court has rightly appreciated pleadings and material
11 wp 4274.25.odt
and passed the impugned order which need not be disturbed in
exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the result, Writ
Petition sans merit, hence dismissed. No costs.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
...
aaa-
