Bombay High Court
Dean Sassoon General Hospital vs Mangesh Anand Agale on 13 October, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:44592
40.WP.13116.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13116 OF 2025
Dean, Sassoon General Hospital and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Mangesh Anand Agale and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Kavita M. Solunke, AGP for Petitioners.
Ms. Jane Cox, Advocate i/by Vinayak Suthar for Respondents.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Solunke, learned AGP Advocate for Petitioners
and Ms. Cox, learned Advocate for Respondents.
2. The impugned order is dated 27.03.2024 passed by the
Industrial Court allowing the complaint filed by Respondent - Union
on behalf of the workmen. The history of employment of workmen /
complainants is narrated in the impugned order itself. It is seen that
complainants were appointed as class IV employees on badali basis
initially for 29 days and subsequently every month and since the year
1999 and they have been appointed continuously every year and since
then they have been in continuous service for 240 days in each
calender year with the Petitioners. There is no dispute about these
facts. Service of the complainants stretches from 1999 till date
1 of 6
40.WP.13116.2025.doc
admittedly. Complainants led appropriate oral and documentary
evidence before the learned Industrial Court which was not only
accepted and appreciated by the Industrial Court but also ruled upon
in favour of complainants. However it is seen that permanency was
granted to some of the complainants and appropriate directions were
given to prepare the seniority list of all badli workers engaged by
Petitioners from time to time. Names of complainants were included in
the seniority list which was placed on record in evidence considering
the employment of complainants as badli workers for such a
humongous stretch of time from the year 1999 till today in the
Government Hospital.
3. Learned AGP has persuaded the Court to consider the fact
that in the year 1999 complainants had filed complaint in the Labour
Court and in that view of the matter, present complaint which is filed
by them would be hit by the bar of res judicata. The submissions on
res judicata are not correct neither appreciated by the Court. In the
year 1999, undoubtedly complainants had not completed the minimum
number of days of service as also the number of years. That time the
complaint may not be maintainable. However engaging the
complainants for such a humongous long period of time as badli
workers, in the opinion of this Court clearly amounts to their
enslavement without giving them benefits.
2 of 6
40.WP.13116.2025.doc
4. The case of the complainants / workers before me is duly
covered by a series of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court in
the following cases:-
(i) Dharam Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.1;
(ii) Mr. Rahul Pittu Savalkar and Ors. Vs. The Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr.2;
(iii) Navi Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. Vs. Navi
Mumbai Municipal Union & Anr.3; and
(iv) Pradip Ramesh Shinde Vs. Malegaon Municipal
Corporation, Malegaon4 alongwith three other Writ
Petitions.
5. That apart, discrimination is also writ large on the face of
record. Some complainants / workers whose names were in the
seniority list were granted permanent employment forthwith by
Respondent No.1 whereas some of the badli workers have been
languishing till date. These complainants / workers have admittedly
worked shoulder to shoulder alongwith permanent workers employed
in the Hospital and they cannot be discriminated with.
6. In that view of the matter, learned Industrial Court has
passed the order dated 27.03.2024 allowing the complaint. Learned
Court has held that complainants are entitled for regularization and
permanency in service from the year 1999 with all consequential
1 Civil Appeal No(s). 8558 of 2018 - Decided on 19.08.2025
2 Writ Petition No.2683 of 2023 - Decided on 03.09.2025
3 Writ Petition No.3749 of 2006 - Decided on 10.09.2025
4 Writ Petition No.7949 of 2025 - Decided on 30.09.2025
3 of 6
40.WP.13116.2025.doc
benefits as stated therein and they are also entitled for fixation of the
wages as per recommendations of the sixth pay commission.
7. PER CONTRA, Ms. Cox, learned Advocate espousing the
cause of complainants on behalf of the workmen would submit that the
order dated 27.03.2024 is not complied with. She would submit that
the workmen have approached the Industrial Court seeking execution
of the order and on filing such complaint and cognizance of the said
complaint having been taken before the Labour Court, the present Writ
Petition has been filed as a complete afterthought to prevent
implementation of the order.
8. Though the learned AGP has persuaded me to stay the
impugned order and injunct from taking steps in furtherance of the
impugned judgment, I am afraid, I cannot come to the assistance of the
Petitioners.
9. The Government Resolution dated 23.07.2015 has been
adequately discussed in the impugned judgment. By virtue of this
Resolution, the Government itself has taken a policy decision to
regularize and grant permanency to all badli workers who have been
long working with them and with the Government Department. Case
of complainants is fully covered by the said Government Resolution
which has been held in favour of complainants. In that view of the
matter, Petitioners will have to therefore comply with the order dated
4 of 6
40.WP.13116.2025.doc
27.03.2024 forthwith.
10. The present Writ Petition cannot be sustained. It is
dismissed. Order dated 27.03.2024 is upheld and confirmed.
11. However merely dismissing the Writ Petition will be of no
consequence as according to this Court the workers will once again be
left at the mercy of the Courts and delays in implementation.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I
am of the opinion that the order dated 27.03.2024 is required to be
complied with in true spirit by the Petitioners. Further continuation of
the complainants as badli workers amounts to exploitation.
13. I therefore direct the Dean, Sassoon General Hospital, Pune
and the Secretary of the Public Health Department of the State
Government to look into the matter and ensure that strict compliance
of the order dated 27.03.2024 is done within a period of six weeks
from today positively in respect of all eligible complainants.
14. I direct that whatever compliance they do, shall be placed
before the Court to enable this Court to monitor the compliance.
Though this Court realizes that in Writ jurisdiction it cannot expand
the scope but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court strongly feels that the workers will not get there due benefit
expeditiously unless and until this Court monitors the same. Hence the
5 of 6
40.WP.13116.2025.doc
aforesaid order is passed.
15. Copy of this order shall be placed before the Secretary,
Public Health Department, State of Maharashtra by the Chief
Government Pleader of this Court. Learned GP shall speak to the Dean
of Sassoon General Hospital, Pune and bring this order to his/her
notice for implementation.
16. Parties to act on a server copy of this order for immediate
compliance.
17. Writ Petition is disposed in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.10.14
18:22:48 +0530
6 of 6
