Bombay High Court
The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... vs Shri A.N. Gore on 6 November, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:47240-DB 22.LPA9_2017.DOC
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5206 OF 2000
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2017
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest &
Director General Social Forestry & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
Vijay Bhagwan Shinde ... Respondent
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5202 OF 2000
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2020
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest &
Director Genera Social Forestry & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
Vijay Jagannath Bhosale (Decd.) through LRS ... Respondent
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2000
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2017
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest &
Director Genera Social Forestry & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
Ambadas Narayan Gore ... Respondent
_______
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for the appellant/State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 6 November, 2025
22.LPA9_2017.DOC
P.C.
1. These Letter Patent Appeals have remained pending. We are informed by
Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader that these Letters Patent
Appeals are part of the group of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 7 of 2017 ( The
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Director General Social Forestry & Anr.
vs. Shri Ramkisan Govind Bendre) along with other Letters Patent Appeals, which
were decided by judgment and order dated 18 December, 2017 passed by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. For convenience, the said order is required to be
noted, which reads thus:
" Since the issues involved in these Letters Patent Appeals are
identical and the common orders of the learned Single Judge dated
15.12.2010 and 08.06.2010 in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the
State Government are appealed against in these Letters Patent
Appeals, the appeals are heard together and are decided by this
common order.
Few facts giving rise to the appeals are stated thus.
The respondents had filed separate complaints before the Industrial
Court for a declaration that the State of Maharashtra and the other
respondents had indulged in unfair labour practices by not granting the
status of permanency to the respondents. The complaint was filed by the
respondents under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Union and Prevention of Unfair Practices Act. Each of the respondents had
claimed that they were working for several years on daily wages and though
they were entitled to permanency benefits, the said benefits were not
awarded to them. The complainants had pleaded that the State and the other
respondents gave artificial breaks to the services of the respondents and had
committed unfair labour practices under item nos.6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV
of the MRTU and PULP Act. The respondents-complainants had sought a
declaration that they had completed 240 days of services during each year of
the service and they were entitled to the privileges and benefits available to
the permanent employees.
The petitioners filed the reply-written statement to the complaints
and disputed that the complainants had worked for 240 days in each
calender year. According to the State of Maharashtra and others, it was
necessary for the complainants to have put in more than 240 days of service
for five years to seek the benefits under the Government Resolution dated
01.11.1994, which was not there. It was stated in the reply filed by the State
22.LPA9_2017.DOC
and the other respondents that since the complainants had not completed
240 days of service in five calender years, they were not entitled to the
benefits of permanency and their complaints were liable to be dismissed.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by
the Industrial Court and after considering the evidence tendered by the
parties, the Industrial Court recorded a finding of fact in every complaint
that the complainants had completed more than 240 days of service in more
than five calender years and they were entitled to the benefits of
permanency. The judgments of the Industrial Court were challenged by the
State Government and the other respondents by filing separate writ
petitions. The writ petitions filed by the complainants/respondents were
decided by the learned Single Judge by the common orders dated
08.06.2010 and 15.12.2010.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge was not justified in
dismissing the writ petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra. It is submitted
that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the Government
Resolution dated 01.11.1994 would have come to the rescue of only those
employees who had completed more than 240 days of service in five
calendar years before 01.11.1994. It is submitted that the complainants had
not made a prayer for a direction to the State Government and the other
respondents to grant the permanency benefits to them. It is stated that it was
disputed that the complainants had completed more than 240 days of service
during any calendar year and the finding of fact that the complainants had
worked for more than 240 days during each of the seven calendar years
during which they claim to have worked with the State Government, is
incorrect. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erroneously relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MSRTC & Anr.
Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana reported in (2009) 8
SCC 556. It is submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of State of
Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the
learned Single Judge could not have upheld the finding of the Industrial
Court that the respondents-complainants are entitled to regularisation of
their services. It is submitted that at the relevant time, sanctioned posts were
not available with the appellants and hence the directions of the learned
Single Judge that the services of the complainant should be regularised
would be incorrect.
On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader and on a
perusal of the common orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.06.2010
and 15.12.2010 as also the judgments of the Industrial Court, it appears that
there is no scope for interference with the judgments of the Industrial Court
that are upheld by the learned Single Judge by the common orders, in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has rightly
considered that the complainants had worked for more than 240 days in
every calendar year for nearly seven years. The finding of fact recorded by
the Industrial Court in that regard could not have been lightly interfered in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Nothing was pointed out either before the
learned Single Judge or this Court by the learned Assistant Government
Pleader to show that the finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Court that
the complainants had worked for 240 days in more than five calendar years
22.LPA9_2017.DOC
was perverse or not based on the evidence on record. The learned Single
Judge had referred to the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) and had
observed that the workmen may not have a fundamental right to seek the
regularisation of the service, however, the statutory right of an industrial
worker to seek regularisation would not be lost in view of the judgment in
the case of Umadevi (supra). The learned Single Judge held that since the
complainants had proved that they had uninterruptedly worked for 240 days
in several calendar years, they were entitled to permanency, in accordance
with the provisions of law. By referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MSRTC (supra), the learned Single Judge held
that the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of the
Industrial Court and the Labour Court were not denuded in view of the
judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra). After referring to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge observed that
since the complainants had duly proved that they had completed 240 days of
service in seven calendar years and since there was sufficient evidence on
record to show that the work for which the complainants were employed was
perennial in nature, they were entitled to a declaration that the State
Government and the other respondents had committed unfair labour
practice in not regularising the services of the complainants. It was held by
the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the complainants cannot be
termed as illegal and at the most, they could have been said to be irregular
and such appointments could be regularised even as per the judgment in the
case of Umadevi (supra), specially as held by the Supreme Court in para 53
thereof. We do not find any illegality in the common orders of the learned
Single Judge so as to interfere with the same in these intra Court appeals. We
do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the State
Government that the complainants had not sought for a direction against the
State Government for the regularisation of their service. On a reading of the
prayer clause in the complaints, we find that by the first prayer made in the
complaints, they had sought a direction against the State Government and
others to regularise their services as they had uninterruptedly worked for
more than 240 days in every calendar year. We also do not find any merit in
the submission made on behalf of the State Government that the Industrial
Court had wrongly recorded a finding of fact that the complainants had
worked for more than 240 days during each calendar year. Nothing is
pointed out on behalf of the State Government to show that the finding of
fact recorded by the Industrial Court is either perverse or is based on no
evidence. The submission made on behalf of the appellants that in the
absence of sanctioned posts, the services of the complainants could not have
been regularised is rejected. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed
that such was not the case of the appellants in their written statement and
there is no evidence in that regard. We find that in the circumstances of the
case the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the judgments of the
Industrial Court and dismissed the writ petitions.
In the result, we dismiss the Letters Patent Appeals with no order as to
costs.
In view of the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeals, all the pending
Civil Applications are disposed of."
22.LPA9_2017.DOC
2. We are fairly informed by Mr. Patel that these appeals can also be dismissed
in terms of the aforesaid order.
3. Accordingly, these Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed in terms of the order
dated 18 December, 2017. No costs.
4. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeals, Civil Applications do not
survive, the same are accordingly disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin
Date: 07/11/2025 17:16:10
