[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal ... vs Akhtar Ali Roshan Ali Sayed And Ors on 20 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:8752
48-WP-4752-22-final.doc
Sayali
SAYALI
DEEPAK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
UPASANI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI
Date: 2026.02.20
17:52:05 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.4752 OF 2022
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal
Corporation and Others ... Petitioners
V/s.
Akhtar Ali Roshan Ali Sayed and Others ... Respondents
Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate i/b Mr Sandeep D.
Shinde, for Petitioners.
Mr. Yogendra Pendse, for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 7,
9,11 to 21, 23, 24, 26 to 39, 41 to 47, 49, 51 to 56,
58 to 62 and 64 to 87.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present petition questions the legality and correctness
of the judgment and order dated 27th September 2019 passed by
the Industrial Court, Thane, in Complaint ULP No. 31 of 2015. By
the said judgment, the Industrial Court recorded a finding that
the petitioners had indulged in unfair labour practice and
consequently directed that 87 complainants be granted the status
of permanency from the date on which each of them completed
240 days of continuous service.
48-WP-4752-22-final.doc
2. Mr. Prasad Dani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners, invited attention to paragraph II of the written
statement filed before the Industrial Court. He submitted that a
specific and categorical defence was raised that the concerned
employees were not appointed against sanctioned posts.
According to him, this issue was central because the question of
granting permanency cannot be divorced from the existence of a
duly sanctioned post in a Municipal Corporation. He pointed out
that despite this clear pleading, the Industrial Court did not
frame a distinct point for determination on this aspect. He further
submitted that the discussion contained in paragraph 16 of the
impugned judgment proceeds mainly on an alleged admission by
the petitioner's witness that the general body had sanctioned the
posts. Learned Senior Counsel argued that such reasoning reflects
a misunderstanding of law, since in the case of a Municipal
Corporation, creation and sanction of posts fall within the
authority of the State Government and not the general body of
the Corporation. According to him, once the legal position
regarding sanctioning authority is correctly appreciated, the
foundation of the Industrial Court's reasoning becomes doubtful.
He therefore contended that the failure to frame and decide this
issue has resulted in a serious error affecting the ultimate
conclusion.
3. In reply, Mr. Pendse learned Advocate appearing for the
contesting respondents supported the impugned judgment. He
submitted that the material on record, including the
48-WP-4752-22-final.doc
advertisement through which appointments were made and the
manner in which the roster was applied, indicates that the
appointments were made against sanctioned posts. According to
him, the very process of recruitment, undertaken publicly and in
accordance with roster requirements, shows that the employer
itself treated the posts as validly available. He contended that the
Industrial Court was therefore justified in proceeding on that
basis and in granting relief to the complainants. It was argued
that the petitioners cannot now raise a technical objection
regarding sanction when the appointments were made through a
formal process and employees were continued for substantial
periods.
4. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears
that the discussion on this issue is confined mainly to
observations in paragraph 16. The reasoning proceeds on the
assumption that sanction by the general body was sufficient.
However, the judgment does not examine the legal position
regarding which authority is competent to sanction posts in a
Municipal Corporation. More importantly, the record shows that
the question of sanctioned posts was specifically raised in the
pleadings, yet no independent point for determination was
framed by the Industrial Court. Framing of issues or points for
determination ensures that parties know what questions require
adjudication and that the adjudicating authority applies its mind
to every material dispute. In the absence of a specific point, the
discussion remains incomplete and the adjudication suffers from
48-WP-4752-22-final.doc
lack of clarity. When a core defence goes unaddressed, the
resulting decision cannot be said to be based on a full and proper
consideration of the controversy.
5. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
matter requires reconsideration by the Industrial Court. The issue
as to whether the complainants were appointed against
sanctioned posts is fundamental to the claim of permanency and
ought to be determined after proper appreciation of pleadings,
documentary material, and applicable legal provisions. Since the
Industrial Court has not undertaken such adjudication in clear
terms, it would not be appropriate for this Court to record
findings for the first time in writ jurisdiction. Interests of justice
would be better served by remanding the matter so that the
parties may have a full opportunity to address this issue and the
Industrial Court may render a reasoned finding on all material
aspects.
6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 27th
September 2019 passed in Complaint ULP No. 31 of 2015 is
quashed and set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the
Industrial Court, Thane. The Industrial Court shall decide
Complaint No. 31 of 2015 afresh, after framing appropriate
points for determination and after granting adequate opportunity
of hearing to both sides. The matter shall be decided in
accordance with law and on its own merits.
48-WP-4752-22-final.doc
7. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. The complaint No. 31/2015 shall be decided within six
months.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
