[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd ... vs Sachin Popat Bhosale on 18 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:8491
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.14730 OF 2025
ATUL Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
GANESH
KULKARNI Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
V/s.
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.02.18 Atul Ramesh Taware ... respondent
17:51:19 +0530
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13967 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Shirish Uttam Tupe ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14703 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Rushikuman Santosh Nawale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14160 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Shekhar Popat Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14702 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ganesh Dhananjay Gavare ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14698 OF 2025
1
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Akshay Dhruvkumar Salgude ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14559 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aditya Shahaji Gaware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14696 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Yogesh Khashaba Pawar ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14556 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aditya Dhananjay Yadav ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14695 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sourabh Ramchandra Deokate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14693 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ganesh Malharrao Jarad ... respondent
2
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14541 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ganesh Birdeo Solankar ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14712 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Abhijit Arvind Pondkule ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14711 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Dattatraya Dnyandeo Khomane ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14709 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Vikas Kundalik Sudake ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14535 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Prithvikumar Dhanyakumar Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14708 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Dinesh Balaso Pondkule ... respondent
3
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14707 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Abhijeet Dinkar Arjune ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14738 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Mangesh Hanumant Lonkar ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14705 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Tejas Dilip Sabale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14716 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Suraj Sanjay Shinde ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14739 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aniket Lalaso Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14718 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Omkar Bhimdeo Waghmode ... respondent
4
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14736 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Balasaheb Sampatrao Saste ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14510 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Kiran Baban Khomane ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14735 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Namdeo Bhanudas Khamgal ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14504 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Pandharinath Ganpat Kate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14545 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Rajendra Tukaram Deokate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14720 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ganesh Satyawan Bhelake ... respondent
5
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.32644 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Nikhil Prakash Bhosale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14727 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Lakhan Kakaso Shendge ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14721 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Amar Vasant Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.32648 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Pradip Rajendra Kokare ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14723 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aniket Balasaheb Gawade ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14528 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sameer Sanjay Khalate ... respondent
6
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14552 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Mahesh Vasantrao Jadhav ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.32652 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Yuvraj Mahadeo Sorate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14725 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sanket Balasaheb Gawade ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.32655 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Shubham Rajendra Rokade ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14731 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sourabh Sanjay Gade ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14498 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Yogesh Prabhakar Jagtap ... respondent
7
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14526 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Raju Kisan Nale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14789 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Yuvraj Shivaji Devkate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.32661 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Pawan Sanjay Gavare ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14488 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Nikhil Prakash Kokare ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14729 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ramchandra Sadashiv Deokate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14529 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ruturaj Annasaheb Deokate ... respondent
8
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14519 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aniket Rajendra Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14157 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Vaibhav A. Nimbalkar ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14189 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Vishal Dilip Pawar ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14139 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Umesh Gopal Deokate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14587 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Rahul Tatyasaheb Wagh ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14786 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Mahesh Hiralal Wagh ... respondent
9
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14135 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Bantiraj Kalyan Chavan ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14521 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Nitin Narayan Nalawade ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14493 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sachin Popat Bhosale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14170 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aniket Laxman Vabale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14747 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Yuvrj Balkrushna Yele ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14142 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Akshay Govind Taware ... respondent
10
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14532 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Shivaji Bapu Khude ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14549 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Shivam Vilas Deokate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14746 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Arvind Mahadeo Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14787 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sumit Satish Giri ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14089 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Dhiraj Nandkumar Dhumal ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14585 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Vinod Dashrath Taware ... respondent
11
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14743 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Akshay Vinayak Phadtare ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14788 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Vaibhav Arjun Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14740 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Karim Balbhim Ejgar ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14180 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sani Ganpat Sargar ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14165 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Kiran Satish Jarad ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14581 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Vishal Mahendra Taware ... respondent
12
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14163 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Mayur Madhukar Chobe ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14523 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aman Ajit Parkhe ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14515 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Prashant Shivaji Kate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14512 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Alankar Vijay Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14506 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Viraj Mohanrao Waghmode ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14095 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sharad Laxman Pawar ... respondent
13
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14534 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Dharmendra Uttamrao Taware ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14082 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Babaraje Yashwant Zambre ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14499 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Avinash Shivaji Yele ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14495 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sagar Ashok Jadhav ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14536 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Pramod Shrihari Kokare ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14039 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Shubham Dattatray Nikam ... respondent
14
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14544 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Dadasaheb Dnyandeo Dhavale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14301 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sani Hanumant Mane ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14284 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Sangram Sunil Dhavale ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14304 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Vivek Prakash Waghmode ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14295 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ganesh Bapurao Aatole ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14271 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Rushikesh Ravindra Nalage ... respondent
15
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14542 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Pratik Sharad Jagtap ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14538 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ajinkya Dhansingh Deokate ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14298 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Ajit Bhagwan Dhaigude ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14307 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Nanaso Jaywant Chopde ... respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14302 OF 2025
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited, through Managing Director ... petitioner
V/s.
Aniket Rajendra Kadam ... respondent
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdish
Aradwad (Reddy) and Mr. Abhijit Patil for the
petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Rao for the respondent in each WP.
16
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2026 20:53:15 :::
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 13, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 18, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality and
correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 17 March 2025 and
7 March 2025 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune in
respective Revision Applications arising out of Complaints filed by
respondent in each writ petition. By the said orders, the Industrial
Court directed reinstatement of the respondent original
complainant in the services of the petitioner from the date of the
order. The petitioner contends that such directions could not have
been issued since no relationship of employer and employee ever
existed between the parties.
2. The background facts may briefly be stated. The petitioner is
a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and runs a sugar factory at
Malegaon (Bk), Taluka Baramati, District Pune in the name of
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Elections to its Board of
Directors are held every five years. Elections were due in January
2020. According to the petitioner, the outgoing Board
apprehended defeat and, with a view to secure electoral support,
assured employment to several persons including the respondent.
In that context, an alleged resolution dated 11 December 2019 was
passed and thereafter a purported appointment order dated 27
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
February 2020 was issued in favour of the respondent. The
outgoing Board lost the elections and a new Board assumed office
on 23 February 2020 after declaration of results on 24 February
2020. It is alleged that thereafter approximately 326 appointment
orders dated 27 February 2020 were issued, though the outgoing
Board had already lost power. The petitioner asserts that these
orders were never implemented and were discovered by the newly
elected Board to have been issued pursuant to a resolution whose
subject itself did not include appointment of employees.
3. The petitioner further states that even after defeat in the
elections, the previous Board convened a meeting on 7 March
2020 and purportedly approved the earlier resolution dated 11
December 2019 though several directors opposed it. The
appointment orders dated 27 February 2020 were entered in the
outward register by overwriting a single outward number between
two existing entries. The same outward number corresponded to a
communication sent to the Provident Fund authority.
4. It is also the petitioner's case that the alleged appointment
orders bear the signature of the then Chairman who had no
authority to issue such orders. Under Standing Order 3 A
applicable to sugar factories, appointment orders must be signed
by the Managing Director. Though the Managing Director was in
office, the Chairman signed the orders. The petitioner asserts that
such appointment orders are not available in the official records
and are therefore non existent and void.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
5. After declaration of election results on 24 February 2020, the
erstwhile Board filed Writ Petition No. 2438 of 2020 before this
Court contending that its tenure continued till 3 April 2020 as per
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. By order dated 6
March 2020 this Court prima facie accepted that contention and
permitted the Board to function till 3 April 2020 subject to the
restriction that no policy decision shall be taken.
6. The State Government through the Cooperative Department
issued a circular dated 13 March 2020 directing all sugar factories
not to make fresh appointments unless the Indulkar Pattern was
implemented. In view of the said circular and the order of this
Court, the Regional Joint Director of Sugar by letter dated 17
March 2020 directed the Chairman of the petitioner factory not to
act upon the alleged appointments made pursuant to the
resolution dated 11 December 2019.
7. Complaints were thereafter made by certain directors to the
Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State regarding the alleged
illegal appointments. By order dated 3 April 2020 the
Commissioner stayed the appointment orders issued on the basis
of the resolution dated 11 December 2019.
8. Pursuant to the directions of the State Government and the
authorities under the Sugar Department, the petitioner factory
issued a public circular dated 10 April 2020 informing that any
orders issued pursuant to the resolution dated 11 December 2019
stood stayed.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
9. The respondent thereafter filed Complaint (ULP) No. 31 of
2021 before the First Labour Court, Pune under Section 28(1) of
the MRTU and PULP Act read with Item 1(a)(b)(d) of Schedule IV.
He alleged that he had been appointed pursuant to resolution
dated 11 December 2019 and appointment order dated 27
February 2020, that he was working continuously, receiving wages
and marking attendance through biometric system, and that his
services were orally terminated on 4 April 2020. He therefore
sought setting aside of the alleged oral termination and
reinstatement.
10. The respondent also filed an application below Exhibit U 2
under Section 30(2) of the Act seeking interim reinstatement
pending the complaint. The petitioner opposed the application and
filed a written statement denying the claim and produced relevant
documents.
11. After hearing both sides, the First Labour Court by order
dated 4 July 2022 rejected the interim application holding that the
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair labour
practice.
12. The petitioner thereafter filed an application in the
complaint seeking decision on maintainability on the ground that
the complainant was not an employee within the meaning of
Section 3(5) of the Act. By order dated 5 August 2023 below
Exhibit U 1 the Labour Court rejected the application holding that
the pleadings and documents disclosed existence of employer
employee relationship. A revision against the said order was
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
dismissed.
13. The Labour Court thereafter recorded evidence of the parties
and their witnesses. By common Judgment and Order dated 18
May 2024 it dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant
failed to prove unfair labour practice or illegal termination from 4
April 2020 and further held that compliance with the order of the
Commissioner of Sugar could not constitute unfair labour practice
under Item 1(a).
14. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed Revision Application
(ULP) No. 66 of 2024 before the Industrial Court, Pune. By the
impugned Judgment and Order dated 17 March 2025 the
Industrial Court allowed the revision and directed reinstatement of
the respondent from the date of the order, which order is
challenged in the present petitions.
15. Mr. Bapat learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits
that the Industrial Court recorded findings without any supporting
evidence by holding that the respondent's appointment was prior
to the resolution dated 11 December 2019. It is contended that
none of the alleged employees produced any appointment order
either prior to or subsequent to the said resolution. The Industrial
Court further erred in observing that unless the appointment order
dated 27 February 2020 was declared void, the petitioner could
not terminate services, despite the specific case of the petitioner
that no such appointment order was ever issued. It is also
submitted that the finding regarding non compliance of Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is unsustainable when no
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
employee proved actual working even for a single day, much less
continuous service of 240 days in the preceding twelve months.
16. It is further submitted that the Industrial Court wrongly
concluded that the newly elected Board appointed 404 workmen
and therefore the complainants were victims of political rivalry.
According to the petitioner, there were no pleadings regarding
such appointments and hence adverse inference ought not to have
been drawn. The said 404 persons were long standing temporary
and seasonal labourers and not fresh appointees. The petitioner
reiterates that elections were held on 23 February 2020 and the
outgoing Board, apprehending defeat, passed the resolution dated
11 December 2019 during the election code of conduct to secure
electoral support by promising employment to about 326 persons.
The results were declared on 24 February 2020 and a new Board
was elected. Though the earlier Board was permitted by order of
this Court dated 6 March 2020 to continue till 3 April 2020, it was
restrained from taking policy decisions. Despite this restriction,
appointment orders dated 27 February 2020 were allegedly issued
after defeat in elections and those orders were neither served nor
found in official records.
17. It is further contended that the respondent produced no
documentary evidence establishing employer employee
relationship or proof of having worked for any period. Under the
applicable Standing Orders of the sugar factory, appointment
orders can be issued only under the signature of the Managing
Director. The alleged orders bear the signature of the Chairman
dated 27 February 2020 and are therefore illegal and void.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
18. The Industrial Court also ignored that the agenda of the
Board meeting dated 11 December 2019 did not include the
subject of appointment of 326 employees. The alleged
appointments were contrary to the Government circular dated 3
January 2020, contrary to directions of the Maharashtra State
Sugar Sangh, the Cooperative Department and the Regional Joint
Director of Sugar. The Commissioner of Sugar by order dated 3
April 2020 stayed all such appointments made pursuant to the
resolution dated 11 December 2019.
19. The petitioner submits that it was bound by directions issued
by the Government, the Sugar Sangh, the Cooperative Department,
the Regional Joint Director and the Commissioner of Sugar. In
compliance with those binding directions, the petitioner issued
circular dated 10 April 2020 staying implementation of the alleged
appointments. The order dated 3 April 2020 passed by the
Commissioner continues to operate and has not been set aside by
any competent court and is therefore binding.
20. It is contended that the respondent never worked in the
factory and therefore was never entitled to wages. He never
approached the petitioner with any grievance regarding
termination. The real grievance was against the order of the
Commissioner dated 3 April 2020 which ought to have been
challenged in appropriate proceedings. Filing of a caveat by the
petitioner was a routine legal precaution and does not establish
termination.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
21. The petitioner submits that no unfair labour practice under
Item 1(a), (b), (d) is made out. The notice dated 10 April 2020
merely implemented the Commissioner's order. During cross
examination the respondent admitted absence of any proof of
employment and admitted that he was not engaged for three
consecutive crushing seasons.
22. It is further submitted that the alleged appointment order is
fabricated and contrary to Standing Orders. The outward register
shows that outward number 9716/2019 20 related to a letter to
the Provident Fund Office and thereafter an interpolated entry was
inserted between numbers 9716 and 9717 showing recruitment of
seasonal workers numbered 9716/1 to 312. The witness
maintaining the register deposed that the Chairman retained the
register between 21 March 2020 and 18 April 2020 and upon its
return the false entry dated 27 February 2020 was noticed and
reported to the Managing Director. This demonstrates interpolation
and not issuance in regular course.
23. Even assuming the respondent's own case that he was
appointed on 27 February 2020 and terminated on 4 April 2020,
he could have worked only about forty days. Therefore, continuous
service of 240 days is not established, and statutory protection is
unavailable.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that resolution
dated 11 December 2019 sanctioned appointment of various
categories of employees and the complainants were appointed
pursuant thereto. Though some claim earlier association, all
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
received appointment letters dated 27 February 2020. They
worked as temporary operatives, received wages by cheque, were
issued tickets and marked attendance through biometric system.
Records remain in custody of the employer. Termination is alleged
to be victimisation and the direction of the Commissioner is not
binding on the Labour Court. Even otherwise reinstatement
without back wages is justified.
25. It is submitted that on 4 April 2020 when the complainants
reported for duty they were orally refused work and thus
terminated without written order or reason in violation of natural
justice and constituting unfair labour practice. Complaints were
lodged with police and labour authorities. Though the new
committee assumed office on 23 February 2020, the earlier
committee continued till 4 April 2020 under court orders. Due to
rivalry the new committee terminated about 100 workers
appointed under the resolution dated 11 December 2019.
Thereafter, a notice dated 10 April 2020 displaying the
Commissioner's order was put up. During the crushing season
2020 2021 commencing on 25 October 2020 the complainant
again sought employment but was refused, and other workers
were engaged. Despite lockdown directions against termination,
services were discontinued. The complainant remained
unemployed though additional temporary and retired workers
were engaged later, and he was ready and willing to work.
26. It is further submitted that the Commissioner passed order
dated 3 April 2020 without hearing the complainant and hence it
is not binding upon him. Termination was politically motivated.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
Filing of caveat indicates admission of termination. Legal notices
dated 21 August 2020 and 26 October 2020 seeking reinstatement
were not replied. Delay in filing complaint occurred due to
nationwide lockdown and extension of limitation granted by the
Supreme Court. Dismissal of the writ petitions is therefore prayed.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
Burden of proof on the complainant:
27. The complainant cannot succeed merely by making
statements in the complaint. The law requires proof, and proof
means reliable material placed before the Court. First he has to
establish that there was a lawful appointment. For that purpose an
appointment letter issued by a competent authority, entries in
service records, wage slips, muster rolls or any official record are
normally expected. Without showing how and by whom he was
appointed, the very foundation of his claim remains uncertain.
28. Next he must demonstrate that he in fact worked in the
Karkhana. Actual work is a matter of fact and not assumption. It
can be shown by attendance registers, biometric records, payment
vouchers, bank entries, co-worker testimony or any
contemporaneous document. If a person says he worked but
produces nothing to indicate presence in the establishment, the
Court cannot presume employment merely on his word.
29. Further, wherever labour law protection depends upon
length of service, continuity becomes important. The complainant
has to show that he worked for the required period in a continuous
manner as contemplated by law. Occasional presence or short
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
duration engagement does not satisfy statutory requirement. The
Court must see concrete material establishing the number of days
worked.
30. Therefore, pleadings only set out the case. They do not prove
it. Allegations in the complaint are only a starting point. Unless
supported by dependable evidence, they cannot discharge the
burden which lies upon the complainant.
Documentary proof of appointment:
31. The first and most striking circumstance is that no original
appointment order is found in the official record of the Karkhana.
When an establishment appoints employees, the record normally
reflects it in a regular and traceable manner. Entries appear in
dispatch registers, inward outward registers and service files in
chronological sequence. Here, the witnesses who maintained the
outward register have explained how the entry relating to these
alleged appointments came to appear in the record. According to
them, between two existing outward numbers a fresh series
numbered 9716/1 to 9716/312 was inserted. The register was not
in their custody for some time as the Chairman had taken it. When
it returned, the additional entries were noticed and immediately
reported. The entry stands sandwiched between earlier completed
entries. Such a pattern is inconsistent with a document issued in
the ordinary course and suggests a later insertion.
32. The appointment letters relied upon by the complainant
carry the signature of the Chairman. The Standing Orders
governing the factory require the Managing Director to sign
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
appointment orders. When the rules clearly fix authority in a
particular officer, a letter signed by another person cannot be
treated as a regular appointment unless special circumstances are
shown. The manner in which the letters are signed therefore
creates serious doubt about their authenticity.
33. The Board meeting dated 11 December 2019 is relied upon
as the source of power for these appointments. However, the
agenda of that meeting does not contain any subject relating to
recruitment of 326 employees. Appointment of such a large
number of workers is not a routine matter. It affects finances,
staffing pattern and statutory compliances. Ordinarily it would be
specifically placed on the agenda for discussion and approval. Its
absence indicates that the meeting was not convened for this
purpose and that the resolution later relied upon does not arise
from a regular deliberative process.
34. When these circumstances are viewed together, they form a
consistent picture. The record does not show regular issuance. The
signatory lacks authority. The agenda does not support the
decision. In spite of these deficiencies, the respondent has not
produced any independent primary material to bridge the gap. The
claim of valid appointment therefore remains unsubstantiated.
35. The respondent relied upon the principle laid down in the
decision Shri Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Through its Managing
Director Verses Ananda Ishwara Kumbhar and Others, (2020) 2
Bom CR 471 where the Court held that merely because the
Managing Director had not personally signed the appointment
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
letter, the appointment would not automatically become illegal if
in fact the workmen were continuously working and the employer
had accepted their services for years together.
36. However, the applicability of that principle depends entirely
on the factual foundation on which that judgment proceeded. In
that case, the Court found clear and undisputed evidence that the
workmen were actually working for long duration, their presence
in the establishment was admitted, and the employer had treated
them as employees for years. The issue there was only about the
form of the appointment and the authority of the signatory. Since
real employment was proved, the Court held that internal
procedural irregularity regarding signature could not defeat
substantive employment. The present case stands on a different
footing. Here, the very existence of employment is in serious
dispute. The appointment letters are not found in official records.
The outward register shows later insertion. The signatory is not
the competent authority under the Standing Orders. The agenda of
the Board does not show any recruitment decision. The
Commissioner stayed implementation of such appointments. Most
importantly, the complainant failed to prove actual working by
producing independent material. Therefore, the controversy is not
about irregular appointment. It is about whether any appointment
existed at all. Where long service and acceptance by employer are
proved, signature irregularity becomes secondary. But where
employment itself is unproved, the signature assumes primary
importance because it becomes the only foundation of the claim.
In such a situation, absence of signature of the competent
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
authority is not a mere technical defect. It goes to the root of the
creation of service relationship. Thus, the cited judgment cannot
assist the respondent. That judgment protects a proved employee
against technical objection. It does not create employment where
foundational evidence is absent. Here the appointment letters
signed by the Chairman cannot be treated as valid merely on the
strength of that precedent because the essential factual element of
admitted or proved employment is missing.
Evidence of actual employment and continuity:
37. The respondent asserts that he actually worked in the
factory, received wages and marked attendance through biometric
face recognition. If supported by proper records, such
circumstances would ordinarily indicate real employment.
Attendance logs, wage registers, bank payment entries or
electronic attendance data are reliable indicators because they are
created in the routine functioning of an establishment and not for
the purpose of litigation.
38. However, no such material has been produced before the
Labour Court. The case of the complainant is that the employer
was in custody of these records. Even then, some supporting
material was expected from his side. A worker who claims
continuous work usually possesses wage slips, bank entries,
identity cards, co-worker testimony or any contemporaneous proof
showing presence in the establishment. None was placed on
record. During cross examination the complainant himself
admitted that he had no document to establish that he worked
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
from the dates mentioned by him. He further admitted that he was
not engaged during three continuous crushing seasons. These
admissions go directly to the root of the claim of continuous
service.
39. Even proceeding on the assumption most favourable to him,
namely that he received an appointment on 27 February 2020 and
was discontinued on 4 April 2020, the total period comes to
roughly forty days. Labour law protection invoked by the
complainant depends upon completion of 240 days continuous
service in the preceding twelve months. The admitted duration
does not even remotely approach that statutory requirement.
40. In these circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the
Industrial Court that 240 days of service stood proved is not
supported by any dependable evidence and cannot be sustained.
Effect of the Commissioner's order and other governmental
directions:
41. The record also shows that several directions were issued by
the competent authorities controlling cooperative sugar factories.
The Cooperative Department and the Regional Joint Director
circulated instructions that no fresh recruitment should be made
unless the prescribed pattern was followed. Thereafter, the
Commissioner of Sugar, by order dated 3 April 2020, specifically
stayed the appointments said to have been made on the basis of
the resolution dated 11 December 2019. The petitioner then issued
a public notice dated 10 April 2020 informing that implementation
of those appointments stood suspended in view of the said order.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
42. A cooperative sugar factory operates within a statutory
framework and is subject to supervision of the authorities under
the cooperative laws. When a competent authority issues a
direction or passes a stay order, the management is expected to
obey it. If the employer had ignored the Commissioner's order and
continued the appointments, it would itself have acted in breach of
statutory control. Therefore, refusal to give effect to the disputed
appointment letters was a consequence of compliance with binding
administrative directions and not an independent decision of the
management to remove workers.
43. If the complainant was aggrieved by the Commissioner's
order, the proper course was to challenge that order before the
appropriate forum. The cause of action in such a situation arises
from the administrative order itself, not from the employer's
obedience to it.
44. The Labour Court appreciated this position and held that
implementation of the Commissioner's order would not amount to
unfair labour practice under Item 1(a) of Schedule IV. The
Industrial Court, while reversing that finding, did not examine the
binding nature of the Commissioner's stay or the chain of
departmental communications that preceded it. As a result, its
conclusion rests without addressing the legal effect of those
directions.
On interpolation, fabrication and adverse inferences:
45. The evidence regarding the outward register assumes
importance because it is the basic dispatch record of the
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
establishment. The witnesses who maintained that register
explained how the book was taken away by the Chairman for some
time and later returned. After its return, a fresh block of entries
relating to the alleged appointments appeared between two
already completed serial numbers. The numbering pattern itself
shows that the entries were not made in ordinary chronological
sequence. From this sequence the Labour Court drew an inference
that the entries were inserted later and were not part of the
original record. The witnesses were examined and cross-examined
on this aspect and their version remained consistent.
46. While reversing the decision, the Industrial Court did not
analyze this evidence in detail. It did not discuss the testimony of
the register keeper nor did it consider the numbering pattern and
custody of the record. When a finding is based upon documentary
suspicion supported by oral evidence, the appellate authority is
expected to evaluate that material before discarding it. Absence of
such discussion weakens the reversal.
47. In a situation where the authenticity of the primary record
itself is doubtful and the only alleged proof of appointment comes
from documents whose origin is questioned, some independent
corroboration becomes necessary. The complainant could have
produced co-worker testimony, payment proof, identity cards or
any contemporaneous material indicating that he actually entered
service. No such corroboration was brought on record. The gap
therefore remained unfilled.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
On the point of Victimisation:
48. The respondent argued that even assuming the requirement
of 240 days service is not strictly satisfied, reinstatement could still
be granted because the termination was an act of victimisation.
According to him, the employer acted out of hostility and therefore
the Court should grant relief irrespective of technical requirements
relating to continuous service.
49. This submission cannot be accepted in the present facts.
Before examining motive, the Court must first be satisfied that the
person complaining was in fact a workman of the establishment.
Victimisation presupposes an existing employment relationship. If
the very appointment is doubtful and not proved by reliable
material, the question of punishing the employee for extraneous
reasons does not arise. The law does not recognize victimisation in
vacuum. It arises only after employment is established.
50. Secondly, allegation of victimisation must be supported by
some objective circumstance such as selective action, disciplinary
targeting, discriminatory treatment or retaliation for lawful
activity. Here the action complained of followed a general order of
the competent authority staying the appointments themselves. The
employer acted uniformly upon that order and issued a public
notice implementing it. Such conduct is consistent with
compliance rather than hostility. Therefore, the argument that
reinstatement should follow on the ground of victimisation cannot
be sustained. In absence of proof of valid appointment and in
absence of material showing targeted action against the
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
complainant, relief cannot be granted merely by attributing motive
to the employer.
Conclusion on findings of fact and law:
51. The Labour Court had examined the oral and documentary
evidence in detail and recorded reasons for disbelieving the
alleged appointment and termination. When a superior forum
interferes with such findings, it is expected to reassess the same
material and explain why the earlier conclusions are incorrect. In
the present case, the Industrial Court set aside the decision but did
not undertake that exercise. The order proceeds on acceptance of
the complainant's version without analysing the basic evidence on
which the Labour Court relied.
52. There was no original appointment order in the official
record. The witnesses spoke about interpolation in the outward
register. The letters carried the signature of a person not
authorised under the Standing Orders. The Commissioner had
already stayed implementation of such appointments. Each of
these factors directly affected the existence of employment itself.
Yet the Industrial Court treated them as inconsequential and
proceeded on the assumption that employment stood proved.
53. The complainant had also admitted during cross examination
that he possessed no record to show actual working and that he
was not engaged during successive crushing seasons. These
admissions were relevant because they went to the root of
continuity of service. The Industrial Court did not address them
while granting reinstatement.
wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc
54. In absence of discussion on these crucial aspects, the
conclusion that the complainant was entitled to reinstatement rests
on assertions rather than evidence. The finding therefore cannot
stand scrutiny in law and does not emerge from the record placed
before the Court.
55. For the reasons discussed above, following order is passed:
(i) The writ petitions succeed;
(ii) The Judgment and Orders dated 17 March 2025 and 7
March 2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in all
Revision Applications are quashed and set aside;
(iii) The common Judgment and Order dated 18 May 2024
passed by the First Labour Court, Pune in Complaints filed by
respondent in each writ petition stand restored;
(iv) The respondents' claim for reinstatement and other
reliefs in complaint filed by responcent in each writ petition
are dismissed;
(v) No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
