Bombay High Court
Navi Mumbai Mahanagar Palika And Others vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Mazdoor Union on 10 September, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:37628
WP.3749.2006.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 2006
Navi Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Navi Mumbai Municipal Union & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge a/w. Ms. Manali Garge and Mr. Kunal
Patil, Advocates for Petitioners.
Ms. Rohini Thyagarajan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Reserved on : AUGUST 14, 2025.
Pronounced on SEPTEMBER 10, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Garge, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Ms.
Thyagarajan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. Present Writ Petition challenges judgment dated 14.02.2006
passed by Industrial Court Maharashtra, Bench at Thane in Complaint
(ULP) No. 454/2003. The judgment is appended below Exhibit 'C' to
Page No. - 39.
3. Briefly stated, City and Industrial Development Corporation
of Maharashtra Limited (for short "CIDCO") handled water supply
within territorial limits of Navi Mumbai. On 01.11.1999 CIDCO
handed over charge of water supply to Petitioners (for short "the
Corporation") responsible for administering civic services in the Navi
1 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
Mumbai region. In order to discharge its statutory duty, water tanks
fitted with pumps are installed at various locations and are operated
by around 116 workmen. Respondent No. 2 Union espouses the cause
of these workmen. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that these
workmen were engaged by contractors appointed by Petitioner and
work carried out by them is of an essential and perennial nature.
These workmen have been working on the above posts as pump
operators since decades. This is an admitted position. Eleven of them
have even expired in the interregnum. As per the list given by the
Union as on date 48 workmen out of the above are still engaged as
pump operators by the Corporation. One workman has been
terminated. On 01.01.2003, Petitioner regularized services of 87 out
of the 116 workmen as pump operators and paid salaries and issued
appointment letters to workmen every 2 to 3 months from date of
their regularisation. Thereafter until 15.09.2003 these workmen
continued to work despite not receiving appointment letters. It is
Respondents' case that Petitioners discontinued services of these
workmen by changing their service conditions and without issuing
notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence
Respondents filed Complaint (ULP) No.454 of 2003 under Section 28
and Item 6 and 9 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for
short 'MRTU & PULP Act') seeking regularization of all 87 workmen
2 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
with wages and fringe benefits. The complaint was allowed by
judgment and order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Industrial Court
declaring Petitioners to have engaged in unfair labour practices and
ordered workmen mentioned in Complaint to be made permanent
with all benefits of permanency with effect from 01.01.2004 by
issuing letter of permanency. This judgement is impugned in the
present Petition. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed the present Writ
Petition in 2006. Petition was admitted on 16/08/2006. Interim relief
was granted on 29.11.2006.
4. Mr. Garge, learned advocate for Petitioner would submit
Petitioners Corporation has not engaged in any unfair labour practices
and complaint itself is not maintainable on the ground that no case
has been made out under Item 6 of MRTU & PULP Act. He would
submit that prior to 01.11.1999 water supply was handled by CIDCO
and maintenance / repairs of water tanks and pump houses was given
to contractors who appointed labourers to carry out said work. He
would submit that though these workmen completed 240 days of
service in a year however they were not continuously employed by
Petitioners since charge of water supply was handed over to
Petitioners only in November 1999.
4.1. He would submit that since contractors wanted to be paid at
a higher rate and Corporation found it unfeasible to revise the same,
3 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
Petitioner No. 1 Corporation itself appointed 75 workmen on ad-hoc
daily wage basis for 3 months with effect from 01.01.2003 which was
extended from time to time. He would submit that later, Petitioner
No. 1 Corporation found it unfeasible to employ the workmen on daily
wage basis hence they announced tenders and thereafter hired fresh
contractors on rotational basis in order to maintain efficiency. He
would submit that contractors were constantly changed but the
workmen remained the same and merely on this ground they cannot
be given permanent status.
4.2. He would submit that the said workmen cannot be made
permanent on the ground that they were employed on ad hoc basis as
State Government had not sanctioned posts for their employment. He
would submit that merely on completion of 240 days of service in a
calender year would not entitle the workmen to seek permanency. He
would submit that for the purpose of appointing contractors, no notice
to the Union under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was
necessary. Hence he would persuade the Court to interfere with the
impugned judgment and set it aside.
5. PER CONTRA, Ms. Thyagarajan, learned advocate for
Respondent No.2 would submit that workmen appointed by Petitioner
Corporation through contractors were engaged as pump operators
responsible for uninterrupted flow and supply of water to Navi
4 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
Mumbai region. She would submit that this work is perennial,
essential and statutory in nature which requires to be tended to
everyday without a break and this fact is acknowledged by Petitioner -
Corporation. She would submit that stoppage of work would lead to
immediate halt in water supply which never happened.
5.1. She would submit that since Petitioner Corporation
discontinued the contractors and regularised services of some of the
workmen, it was not open to Petitioner Corporation to unilaterally
undo its decision and re-engage contractors without issuing statutory
notice under Section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She would
submit that it is an undisputed fact that all workmen completed 240
days of service and there existed a master - servant relationship as
their names appeared on Petitioner's pay roll, their work was
supervised by Petitioner's officers and they were paid directly by
Petitioner Corporation.
5.2. She would submit that as per Clause 4C of Bombay
Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules 1959 (for short "BIE
Rules"), temporary workmen who put in 240 days of uninterrupted
service, during the preceding 12 months have to be made permanent.
She would submit that Petitioners do not dispute applicability of BIE
Rules before Industrial Court and even before this Court. She would
submit Clause 4C is a beneficial provision governing service conditions
5 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
of workmen and would prevail over provisions of the Maharashtra
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. She would submit that when need
for creation of posts arises, failure of State Government to do so
would amount to gross apathy by the State towards fulfilling its
statutory duties. She would submit that facts of present case show that
Petitioner Corporation has repeatedly stated on record that work of
water supply is perennial and continuous in nature but has failed to
assess the posts of pump operators required and regularise the
workmen working in those posts.
5.3. In support of her above submissions she has referred to and
relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this
Court to contend that the impugned jdugement decserved to be
upheld in view of the ratio in the following cases:-
(1) Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP & Anr. 1
(2) Workmen of the Food Corporation of India Vs. Food
Corporation of India 2
(3) H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others 3
(4) S.G Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union Vs. S.G
Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and Another 4
(5) Nihal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others with
Bhupinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab 5
(6) Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others with Anita and Others
cs Union of India and Others 6
(7) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai Vs. Kachara Vahatuk Shramik Sangh 7
1 Civil Appeal No. (S) 8558 of 2018 decided on 19.08.2025
2 (1985) 2 SCC 136
3 (1985) 4 SCC 201
4 (1986) 2 SCC 624
5 (2013) 14 SCC 65
6 SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 with SLP (C) 11086 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024
6 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
(8) The Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs. Nasik Zilla Van
Shramik Sangh8
(9) Municipal Council, Tirora and another Vs. Tulsidas Baliram
Bindhade9
(10) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Petroleum
Coal Labour Union and Other. 10
(11) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan Gopal and
Others11
(12) Union Territory of Ladakh and Others Vs. Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference and Another 12
(13) Durgapur Casual Workers union and Others Vs. Food
Corporation of India 13
(14) Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh Vs. Jet Airways
Limited14
(15) Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra through its Dairy Manager and Another 15
(16) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
Another Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana 16
(17) Hari Nandan Prasad and Another Vs. Employer I/R to
Manament of Food Corporation of India and Another 17
(18) Sarva Shramik Sangh (Union) Vs. The Commissioner
Thane Mahanagar Palika and Others 18
6. I have heard Mr. Garge, learned Advocate for Petitioners -
Coporation and Ms. Thyagarajan, learned Advocate for Respondents
and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
Submissions made by both Advocates at the bar have received due
consideration of the Court.
9 2016 (6) Mh.L.J 867
10 (2015) 6 SCC 494
11 2020 SCC OnLine SC 150
13 (2015) 5 SCC 786
14 (2023) 20 SCC 178
15 (2020) 17 SCC 393
16 (2009) 8 SCC 556
17 (2014) 7 SCC 190
7 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
7. At the outset, it is seen that the list of workmen is appended
to submissions of Ms. Thyagarajan. Aforementioned list was also
before the Industrial Court as evidence and was marked as an Exhibit.
It is seen that the list sets out the names of workmen regularised by
Petitioners as well as their employment status. Presently, from the list
it is seen that there are 48 workmen who are in active service with the
Petitioners, 11 workmen are deceased and services of 1 workman is
terminated.
8. It is seen that Union has led evidence and examined one
witness Mr. Narendra Laxman Vairal before Industrial Court whose
evidence is marked as Exhibit OW-1. He has been cross-examined by
Petitioner Corporation. It is seen that from the deposition of the
Respondents' witness, that though these workmen were employed as
pump operators through contractors their services were supervised by
Petitioners' Officers and supervisors. It is seen that for a brief period
Petitioners stopped engaging contractors and employed these
workmen directly by issuing fresh appointment letters every 2 to 3
months to them until October 2003 when Petitioners appointed
contractors. Documentary evidence in the form of appointment letters
issued by Petitioner Corporation are produced on record. It is seen
that attendance of these workmen was marked in the attendance
register and the same was kept with the Petitioner and it is seen that
even on break days these workmen performed their duties. It is seen
8 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
that even after Petitioners stopped issuing appointment letters,
services of these workmen continued. further it is seen that except in
the case of one workman, termination letter was never issued to any
workman. It is seen that there is a vast disparity in duty hours, wages
and other benefits between permanent employees and these workmen
and therefore they sought benefits of permanency in the Complaint.
8.1. It is seen that Petitioners examined Deputy Engineer (water
supply) Mr. Sonawane as CW- 1 and he was cross examined as well. It
is seen from his deposition that Corporation employed 75 pump
operators whose services were were regularised but however
Corporation did not extend benefits of permanent employees to these
workmen. It is seen that even though Petitioners terminated their
services, but they were engaged on duty and fresh appointment letters
were issued. It is seen that no written termination orders were issued
neither the workmen informed of their termination. It is also seen that
no letters were issued to these workmen directing them to work under
contractors stating that Petitioner was not the employer of these
workmen. It is also seen that Junior Engineer of the Petitioner was
supervising the work of these workmen throughout.
9. The sum and substance of the documentary evidence when
read clearly shows that these workmen produced adequate
documentary evidence to prove that they worked as pump operators
9 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
that they were appointed by Petitioner - Corporation and worked
continuously for more than 240 days in one year consecutively for
years together. However in rebuttal, Petitioner - Corporation did not
place any incriminating material nor any documentary evidence on
record to prove their case to the contrary or to show termination of
workmen.
10. It is seen that originally 116 workmen were engaged as
pump operators. It is also seen that Petitioners have not filed
registration certificate of the contractors appointed under the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 neither has it produced
the contractors' licence copies on record authorizing them to engage
contract labour and temporary workmen to work for the Respondent
Corporation. The modus - operandi Petitioner - Corporation was to
regularise the service of 75 workmen and issue appointment letters to
them every 2 to 3 months but after a point of time even that stopped.
It is seen that Corporation did not issue any termination letter neither
did they orally inform these workmen about their termination hence
the workmen being confused as to their status of employment,
continued to report to their respective pump houses / tanks to carry
out their duties and their services were conveniently continued by the
Corporation. These workmen engaged by Petitioner were discharging
essential duties perennial in nature without breaks and hence
Petitioner - Coporation should have regularised their services by
10 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
providing them requisite appointment letters, wages and all other
benefits on par with other permanent employees of the Corporation as
per law.
11. Regarding applicability of Clause 4 (C) BIE Rules, it is seen that
these workmen engaged by Petitioner Corporation had completed 240 days
in a calender year in service even to the point of working every day without
availing artificial breaks whether under the contractors or as regular
workmen since 01.11.1999. It is seen that applicability of the BIE Rules has
not been disputed by Petitioner Corporation hence these workmen
deserved to be made permanent. There is also no doubt that Petitioner -
Corporation had failed to issue appointment letters, pay equal wages and
allot equal working hours to these workmen as given to other employees.
Hence Petitioner - Corporation contravened the provisions under Item 6 of
Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
12. It is also seen that Petitioner - Corporation stopped engaging
services of contractors but however, retained and temporarily regularised
services of some of these workmen. It is also seen that after a while,
Petitioner Corporation appointed contractors however no notice under
Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 was issued to these
workmen or the Union, but these services were continued. It is seen that
there is a visible difference in the wages paid to workmen by Petitioners
and by the contractors hence notice under Section 9A ought to have been
11 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
issued to workmen and in this regard attention is drawn to decision of the
Supreme Court in Workmen of the Food Corporation of India Vs. Food
Corporation of India (supra) cited by learned Advocate for Respondents:-
"19. No attempt was made on behalf of the respondent-
Corporation to urge that any of the aforementioned rules would
govern the conditions of service of the workmen involved in the
dispute. Now after introducing the direct payment system
agreed to between the parties, if the Corporation or the
employer wanted to introduce a change in respect of any of the
matters set out in Fourth Schedule, it was obligatory to give a
notice of change. Item 1 in the Fourth Schedule provides :
"wages, including the period and mode of payment". By
cancelling the direct payment system and introducing the
contractor, both the wages and the mode of payment are being
altered to the disadvantage of the workmen. Therefore,
obviously a notice of change was a must before introducing the
change, otherwise it would be an illegal change. Any such illegal
change invites a penalty under Section 31(2) of the I.D. Act,
1947."
13. It is seen in the present case that status of employment of these
workmen was changed from the Petitioner - Corporation directly paying
wages to workmen at the rate of Rs. 80 to 105/- per day to the contractor
who paid workmen Rs.60-80/- per day. It is seen that if change in wages
paid to workmen falls under Item 1 in Schedule IV of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 then notice under Section 9A is required to be issued to the
workmen and failure to do so would amount to unfair labour practice
under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.
14. Admittedly, the work of supplying water to Navi Mumbai
region is undoubtedly of an essential character and perennial in
nature hence pumps and water tanks valves are required to be
12 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
maintained and operated continuously and stoppage would render a
halt in water supply which would cause prejudice to the residents in
Navi Mumbai. Petitioner - Corporation hence ought to appoint regular
and permanent workmen so that efficient and conscientious work is
performed there is no dereliction in providing essential services. With
regard to the submission made by Mr. Garge that State Government
had not sanctioned any posts for permanent employment of the
workmen , the same is untenable and cannot be accepted. Where
there is a need for creation of posts and the power to create such posts
is not exercised by the State Government, then such failure would
amount to an arbitrary and purposeful inaction on part of the State. In
fact Section 51 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 lays
down duty of the Petitioner - Corporation to make recommendations
to the State Government to create posts where necessary. It may be
prudent to reproduce Section 51 below:-
"51. Number, designations, grades, etc. of other municipal
officers and servants.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-
section (4), the Standing Committee shall from time to time
determine the number, designations, grades, salaries, fees and
allowances of auditors, assistant auditors, officers, clerks and
servants to be immediately subordinate to the Municipal Chief
Auditor and the Municipal Secretary respectively.
(2) The Commissioner shall, from time to time, prepare and
bring before the Standing Committee a statement setting forth
the number, designations and grades of the other officers and
servants who should in his opinion be maintained, and the
amount and nature of the salaries, fees and allowances which
he proposes should be paid to each.
(3) The Standing Committee shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (4) sanction such statement either as it stands or
subject to such modifications as it deems expedient.
13 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
[(4) No new posts of the officers and servants of the
Corporation shall be created without the prior sanction of the
State Government: Provided that, the decision of the
Government on a proposal complete in all respects, received
from the Corporation for creation of posts shall be
communicated to the Corporation within ninety days from the
date of the receipt of such proposal by the Government.]
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
right of the Corporation or of the Commissioner to make any
temporary appointment which it or he is empowered to make
under section 53.
[Explanation.-- Any revision of pay scale or pay structure or
grant of special pay, or grade, or revision of allowances
(excluding dearness allowance) or change in designation shall
be deemed, for the purposes of sub-section (4), to be the
creation of a new post.]"
15. Hence, it is seen that the there is no provision that precludes
Petitioner - Corporation from recommending to the State Government
to create and sanction posts however the above provision casts a duty
upon Petitioner - Corporation to submit recommendations to the
Standing Committee to create requisite posts to accommodate officers
and workmen.
16. It is seen that during pendency of proceedings before the
Industrial Court, some workmen have left the service of Petitioner -
Corporation while some have expired and hence a revised list of 70
workmen who were in service was submitted to the Industrial Court.
However, it is seen that the list filed in Court by Ms. Thyagarajan
today only contains 60 names hence it appears that in the
interregnum, more workmen have either expired or left the service of
the Petitioners.
14 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
17. It is also seen that attendance of these workmen was
marked along with other permanent employees of the Petitioner -
Corporation; that their work supervised by officers of Petitioner -
Corporation; that their services were terminated illegally and without
following the due process of law; that Petitioner - Corporation and
contractors also failed to place on record valid licenses and
registration certificate under the Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act, 1970 as a sequitur of this, all these workmen not only
deserve to be made permanent but are entitled to full benefits
equivalent to that received by permanent employees of Petitioner -
Corporation.
18. Needless to state that since the workmen had continued
working despite non - issuance of appointment letter, I am of the
opinion that they should be entitled to backwages / differential in
backwages.
19. In this regard and the context of the facts of the present
case, I would like to quote paragraph nos. 1, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20 of a
very recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam
Singh vs State of UP (supra) decided on 19.08.2025 and relied upon
by Ms. Thyagarajan after the matter was closed for orders on
14.08.2025 which aptly describes and covers the situation of the
workmen before me and guides what the courts will have to do in
15 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
such cases. The above paragraphs read thus:-
"1. When public institutions depend, day after day, on the
same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that
those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers
are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us
is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about
whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting
excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the
rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We
resolve it by insisting that public employment should be
organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect
for the dignity of work.
xxxxxx
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed
by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the
appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge
before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional
scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's
arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own
acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance
on the very workforce. On the other hand,Umadevi (Supra)
draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular
engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of
precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and
the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent
decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in
Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically
cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield
to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of
outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where
identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The
principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present
case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been
reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption
in the absence of statutory rules providing such
absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi
itself distinguishes between appointments that are
"illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being
eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions.
More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to
justify exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
Given the record which shows no true contractor-based
arrangement and a consistent need for permanent
horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
16 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-
wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain
muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's
failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-
allows an adverse inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be dismissed
summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a
genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would
be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
"temporary" employment practices as done by a recent
judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the
following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers' rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an
increase in precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits, job security,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government institutions,
entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness
and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to
avoid such exploitative employment practices. When
public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
.........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational
purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly
become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations
owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of regular
17 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees
are frequently dismissed without cause or notice,
as seen in the present case. This practice
undermines the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions,
or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant
in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts,
despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with
another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health
insurance, and paid leave, even when their
tenure spans decades. This lack of social security
subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.""
xxxxxx
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal
(Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to
perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement
practices where the work is inherently perennial. The
Commission's further contention that the appellants are not
"full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim
orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection
was granted precisely because of the long history of
engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's
refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases
entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the
legality of those refusals.
xxxxxx
18 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the
State (here referring to both the Union and the State
governments) is not a mere market participant but a
constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs
of those who perform the most basic and recurring public
functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year,
the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned
strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of
regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in
public administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public
policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and
the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"
thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments
must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster
rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with
evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over
sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is
invoked, the record should show what alternatives were
considered, why similarly placed workers were treated
differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14,16
and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is
a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision
affecting those who keep public offices running.
xxxxxx
20.We have framed these directions comprehensively because,
case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been
met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and
administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for
those who have already laboured for years on daily wages.
Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest
on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear
duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard
and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a
sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and
implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow
these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a
conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity
for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full
regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn
affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to
convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in
engagement and transparency in administration are not matters
of grace, but obligations under Articles14,1 6 and 21of the
Constitution of India."
19 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
20. The above words of the Supreme Court need reiteration in
the facts of the present case viz; sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not a sentimentality. It is a
constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting
those who keep public offices running. Supreme Court has
emphasized that the State is not a mere market participant but a
constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of
those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. The
Supreme Court holds that long term extraction of regular labour
under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration
and offends the promise of equal protection.
21. Taking into account the overall circumstances, the
impugned judgment in my opinion is therefore a well reasoned order
giving cogent and reasoned findings in paragraph Nos.12 to 22 of the
same. The said order dated 14.02.2006 therefore for all the above
observations, reasons and findings cannot be faulted with and does
not call for any interference of this Court. Hence the Petition Fails.
22. The Judgment dated 14.02.2006 is upheld and confirmed.
Resultantly, Writ Petition fails. Petitioner - Corporation is directed to
reinstate the 48 workmen in services of Petitioner - Corporation as
pump operators within a period of one week from the date of this
judgment and grant them continuity in service. It is directed that these
20 of 21
WP.3749.2006.doc
workers will be entitled to backwages / differential wages and all
benefits and letter of permanency to be issued to these workmen.
Petitioner - Corporation shall comply with the said Judgment
forthwith and in any event within a period of two weeks from today.
Respondent No. 1 Union shall co-operate with the Petitioners for
providing all necessary details of the concerned workmen.
23. Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
24. After this judgement is pronounced, Mr Garge, learned
Advocate for Petitioner persuades the Court to stay the judgment for 4
weeks to test the validity and legality of the same before the Superior
Court.
25. Considering the fact that the workers involved are already
working with the Corporation, request made by Mr. Garge for stay is
granted. Judgement is stayed for a period of 4 weeks from today to
enable the Municipal Corporation to challenge the same before the
Superior Court.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date: 2025.09.10
13:10:56 +0530
21 of 21
