[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Principal, Hislop College, Nagpur ... vs Niket Jogesh Mohite on 15 May, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:7351
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1479 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondent
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India
Bhavan, 16, Pandit Pant
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Amit Micheal Gedam
Ori. Complainant Age. Major, Occ. Laboratory Attendant,
Income Tax Layout, Dabha Wadi,
Nagpur.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1480 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondents
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India
Bhavan, 16, Pandit Pant
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
2
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Smt. Tarabai Hemraj Patil,
Ori. Complainant Age. Major, Occ. -,
R/o. Indira Mata Tekdi,
Post Benzonbag, Nagpur.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1481 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondent
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India
Bhavan, 16, Pandit Pant
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Niket Jogesh Mohite,
Ori. Complainant Age. Major, Occ. Sweeper,
R/o. Nag Temple,
Near Itwari Station,
Porter, Nagpur.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1482 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondents
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
3
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India Bhavan, 16,
Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi -
110001.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Sukhwanta Rajendra Jagane,
Ori. Complainant Age. Major, Occ. Gardener,
R/o. Vasantrao Naik Vasahat,
Dharampteh, Nagpur.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1483 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondents
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India Bhavan, 16,
Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi -
110001.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Sebastiam Aric Swamy Anthony,
Ori. Complainant Age. Major, Occ. Laboratory Attendant,
R/o. Gaddi Godam, Gautam Nagar,
Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
4
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1484 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondents
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India Bhavan, 16,
Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi -
110001.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Sudhir Suresh Shikkalwar,
Ori. Complainant Age. Major, Occ. Sweeper,
R/o. Ward No. 32, Ganji Peth,
Shukarwari, Nagpur.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1485 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondents
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India
Bhavan, 16, Pandit Pant Marg,
New Delhi - 110001.
..VERSUS..
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
5
RESPONDENT :- Smt. Savita Durgaprasad Jagane,
Age. Major, Occ. Gardener,
R/o. Vasantrao Naik,
Vasahat, Dharampeth,
Nagpur - 440010
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1486 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondent
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary, Church of North
India Synod, Church of North
India Bhavan, 16, Pandit Pant
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Nanda Narayan Kamble,
Ori. Complainant Age. Major, Occ. Peon,
R/o. Bada Indora,
Shiv Mandir Road, Nagpur.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1487 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. The Principal,
Ori. Respondent
Hislop College, Temple Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Chairman and General
Secretary,
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
6
Church of North India Synod,
Church of North India
Bhavan, 16, Pandit Pant
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Prashant Naresh Ahirrao,
Ori. Complainant Age. Major,
R/o. Gate No. 5, VCA Stadium,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Sanyal, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Mehadia, Advocate for the Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 17.04.2026
PRONOUNCED ON 15.05.2026
JUDGMENT:
1) Heard finally with consent of learned advocates
for the respective parties.
2) Since all these petitions arise out of similar set of
facts and same questions of law arise for consideration in all
these petitions, the petitions are decided by a common
judgment. The petitioners are employers of the
respondent/employee in all these cases. For the purpose of
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 1479/2020 are taken
into consideration.
3) The present petition is filed challenging judgment
and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Member
Industrial Court No.3, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.114 of
2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned
Industrial Court has held that the petitioners have engaged in
unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV
of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by not
granting benefit of permanency of service to the respondent
and by not making payment of wages at par with other
similar permanent employees and has directed the petitioners
to accord status and privileges of permanent employee to the
respondent from 01.08.2007 and pay salary to him at par
with other similar permanent employees.
4) The petitioner No.2 is an institution which runs
petitioner No.1-college. The respondent claims that he was
appointed on the post of Laboratory Attendant in petitioner
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
No.1-college in the year 2007 against a sanctioned vacant
post. It is his case that more than 150 teaching and non-
teaching employees are working in petitioner No.1-college.
5) It is the case of respondent that although he is
working against a sanctioned post for years together, the
appointment is shown to be made on temporary basis,
despite the fact that regular work is available and on that
basis benefits of permanency are not extended to him and
salary is also not paid to him in the prescribed scale as is paid
to other employees performing identical work. He has stated
that the petitioner No.1 is an "industry" within the meaning
of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
service conditions of non-teaching staff of petitioner No.1 are
governed by Model Standing Orders (for brevity, "MSO")
framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act, 1946. Placing reliance on Clauses 4C and 4D of the MSO
it is contended that status of a regular employee should be
conferred upon completion of 240 days of service in a
calendar year. Reliance is also placed on the Maharashtra
Non-agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
Code (Revised Pay of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules 1989
(for brevity, "Standing Orders"). The said complaint came to
be registered as Complaint ULP No.114 of 2012.
6) The present petitioners appeared in the matter
and filed written statement stating that the complainant was
initially appointed in service on 01.08.2007 as Laboratory
Attendant. It is stated that the initial appointment of the
complainant was only till 31.03.2008. It is also stated that
the appointment was on consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per
month. The petitioner stated that the appointment was not
made against a clear vacant post and that the service
rendered by the petitioner was not full-time service. It is
further stated that as on the date of filing of complaint, the
complainant was working on temporary basis on payment of
consolidated salary of Rs.3410/- per month. It was stated
that the complainant had appeared for walk-in interview and
was appointed accordingly. It was also stated that the
appointment of complainant was made for un-aided syllabus.
7) The complainant filed a re-joinder stating that
there were around six thousand students taking education in
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
the petitioner No.1-college, out of which around two
thousand students were taking education against unaided
courses. The complainant also stated that other employees
such as security guards and cycle stand staff etc., were
appointed through other external agencies/contractors on
temporary basis. The complainant denied the contention that
he was working on part-time basis. In order to substantiate
his contention he stated that there were 3 Botany laboratories
in the college and that three Laboratory Attendants were
working in two laboratories for junior college degree course.
He stated that there was another Laboratory for Botany for
Master's Degree course which was not having any permanent
Laboratory Attendant. He stated that post of Laboratory
Attendant in the 3rd Laboratory against which he was working
was vacant against which full time work was available. The
complainant has stated that the post-graduate course is not
admitted to grant-in-aid.
8) Based on rival pleadings, the parties led their
evidence in the matter. After recording the evidence and
hearing respective arguments the learned Industrial Court
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
allowed the complaint. The learned Industrial Court has
recorded a finding that the college fell within the definition
of "industry" with respect to non-teaching activities.
9) During the course of his evidence, the
complainant proved appointment orders dated 02.07.2007,
02.06.2008, 30.04.2009, 29.06.2009, 19.06.2010,
17.06.2011 and 18.07.2012, which are at Exhibits U-18 to
U-24. The extract of payment of salary from December-2008
to January-2016 came to be exhibited as Exhibit U-25 and
the statement of account of the complainant with Indian
Overseas Bank for period from December-2008 to
March-2013 came to be Exhibited as U-26.
10) The petitioners filed affidavit of the principal of
the college and produced on record photocopies of muster
rolls from November-2009 to February-2018 and biometric
reports for the years 2015 to 2017.
11) Based on the muster roll produced on record by
the petitioners, the learned Industrial Court has recorded a
finding that the complainant had continuously rendered more
than 240 days of service with the petitioner No.1-college in
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
each calendar year. The petitioner and respondent made a
statement with respect to number of days for which service
was rendered by the respondent pursuant to each
appointment order. Even according to the petitioners, the
respondent had rendered more than 240 days service in every
calendar year. The learned Industrial Court has therefore held
that the respondent was continuously working with the
petitioners since the date of his initial appointment on
01.08.2007 and that since more than 240 days of service is
rendered in a calendar year for several years, the respondent
was entitled to status of a permanent employee. In view of
the aforesaid, the Industrial Court has also held that salary
was payable to the respondent as is payable to a permanent
employee.
12) It will be pertinent to state that during the course
of cross-examination, the petitioners' witness admitted that
two persons namely Pravin Atarkar and Rahul Pathade, who
were employed alongwith the respondent were made
permanent by the petitioners. This also is a ground on which
the learned Industrial Court has held that the petitioners had
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
engaged in unfair labour practice. The learned Industrial
Court found that regular work was available for the
respondent and that during the summer vacations respondent
was given artificial break and reinstated in service upon
commencement of next academic year. It is found that every
year the respondent had rendered service for minimum nine
and half months. In view of such findings the complaint came
to be allowed.
13) Mr. S. S. Sanyal, learned advocate for the
petitioners raises a preliminary objection with respect to
jurisdiction of the learned Industrial Court by contending that
since a college is not an "industry", the learned Industrial
Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The contention cannot be accepted. It is not well settled that
a school or college also falls within the definition of
"industry" with respect to non-teaching employees. It is not
the case of the petitioners that the respondent was employed
against any teaching post. The preliminary objection
pertaining to jurisdiction is rejected.
14) As regards merits of the matter, the contention of
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
Mr. Sanyal, is that the learned Industrial Court ought not to
have granted the relief sought by the respondent since the
appointment of respondent was not against any sanctioned
post and further on the ground that the appointment was not
made by following prescribed procedure for making regular
appointments. The learned advocate contends that the
burden of proving that appointment of the respondent was
made against a clear vacant post and that too by following
the prescribed procedure was on the respondent and that the
respondent had failed to discharge the said burden.
15) Per contra, Mr. Mehadia, the learned Advocate for
the respondent contends that since work is extracted from the
respondent, salary and other service benefits cannot be
denied to him. The learned Advocate contends that equal pay
for equal work is a constitutional mandate enshrined under
Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which must be
followed. He further argues that the learned Industrial Court
has recorded categorical finding based on admissions of the
petitioner No. 1-college that the respondent/employee was
working as a full time employee for more than 240 days in a
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
calendar year all throughout. The learned Advocate also
draws attention to the fact that the post-graduate courses in
the college are unaided courses. He contends that apart from
two laboratories for Botany subject for Junior College and
Degree College, there is one laboratory for post of graduate
degree course in Botany. The learned Advocate states that
three Laboratory Attendants are required in one Laboratory
and as such the respondent/employee who is working in
Botany laboratory for post-graduate courses, is discharging
his duties against a clear vacant post. As regards, the
procedure contemplated for making appointments, the
learned Advocate contends that legal principle with respect to
public employment cannot be made applicable to the
petitioner No. 1-college, which is admittedly a private
institution. With respect to status of the college as an
"industry", the learned Advocate contends that the college is
certainly an "industry" with respect to non-teaching
employees.
16) I have heard the rival submissions as aforesaid. I
have also perused respective pleadings, and oral and
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
documentary evidence brought on record. Likewise, both
sides have taken in through the findings recorded by the
learned Industrial Court.
17) As regards the preliminary objection raised by Mr.
Sanyal, learned Advocate with respect to the petitioners-
college not being an "industry", the same is liable to be
rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of A. Sundaranbai V/s. Government of
Goa, Daman and Diu and ors. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 42
and Raj Kumar V/s. Director of Education and ors. reported
in (2016) 6 SCC 541.
18) In the case of Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University and another V/s. Hon'ble Member,
Industrial Court Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and
ors. reported in (2016) 2 Mh.L.J. 454, it is held that
University is not an industrial establishment. In the said case,
this Court was dealing with definition of the term "Industrial
Establishment" as defined under the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The said judgment does not
deal with definition of the term "industry" as defined under
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Maharashtra
Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The definition of term
"Industrial Establishment", as defined under the Standing
Orders Act of 1946 is different than definition of term
"industry" as defined under the I.D. Act and B.I.R. Act.
19) The complaints are filed invoking provisions of
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Section 3(7) of the MRTU and
PULP Act defines the term "industry" to mean "industry" as
defined under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act or as the
case may be "industry" as defined under the Industrial
Disputes Act. The definition of the term "industry" as defined
under the Industrial Disputes Act and BIR Act are almost the
same. A college will fall within the definition of "industry" in
view of judgment in the case of A. Sundaranbai (supra) and
Raj Kumar (supra). The preliminary objection raised by Mr.
Sanyal, learned Advocate pertaining to jurisdiction of
Industrial Court is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
20) The next contention raised by the learned
Advocate for the petitioners is that the benefits of MSO will
not be applicable to the employees of a college affiliated with
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University since the
service conditions of non-teaching employees are governed
by the provisions of the Maharashtra Non-agricultural
Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms
and Conditions of Service of Non-teaching Employees) Rules
1984. The learned Advocate contends that the learned
Industrial Court has erred in applying the provisions of MSO
in order to grant benefit of regularization in service to
respondent/employee. Per contra, Mr. Mehadia, learned
Advocate for respondent contends that the provisions of MSO
will also be applicable and that both the provisions are
required to be read harmoniously.
21) In the facts of the present case, in my considered
opinion, it is not necessary to go into a larger question as to
whether the provisions of the MSO will be applicable or not
to grant benefit of permanency to the respondent. Even if it is
assumed that the provisions of MSO will be applicable, it
must be said that the provisions of the Standard Code will
certainly be applicable. The Standard Code prescribes service
conditions of non-teaching employees of Universities and
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
Affiliated Colleges. It is framed by the State Government in
exercise of the rule-making powers conferred under Section
77-A of the erstwhile Universities Act of the year 1974 for
each university. It will be pertinent to state that earlier there
was a separate enactments under which each University in
the State of Maharashtra was constituted. All these
Universities Acts were almost identical. Section 77-A of the
Universities Act conferred rule-making powers upon the State
Government to prescribe a code regulating terms and
conditions of service of non-teaching employees in Non-
Agricultural Universities and Colleges affiliated to the
Universities. The Standard Code is framed in exercise of the
said rule-making powers. Since then, all the Universities Acts
of the year 1974 came to be repealed by the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994. However, the Standard Code framed
under the erstwhile Universities Acts was saved as per
Section 115(xiv) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
The Maharashtra Universities Act is also repealed by the
Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. However, in view
of Section 146(n), the Standard Code is saved.
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
22) In order to avail benefit of MSO, the
respondent/employee will have to establish that his
appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of
Standard Code. The applicability of Standard Code cannot be
disputed at all. Therefore, if the respondent/employee
intends to invoke the beneficial provisions of MSO in relation
to his appointment with petitioner No. 1-college, he will have
to establish that his appointment is made in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under the Standard Code.
23) Rule 4 of the Standard Code provides that all
non-teaching posts which are required to be filled in by
nomination or selection shall be advertised in at least two
daily newspapers, one of which, will be in Marathi. In
addition, Rule 4 also prescribes that the vacancies must be
notified with the concerned Employment Exchanges and the
concerned District Court Social Welfare Officers. In the case
at hand, the record does not indicate that the appointment of
respondent/employee was made by following the said
procedure. It is not even a pleaded by the respondent that the
advertisement pursuant to which he was appointed was
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
published in 2 dailies, one of which was a Marathi daily
and/or vacancies were published to Employment Exchange or
District Social Welfare Officer. Thus, even as per pleading of
respondent/complainant his appointment is not made by
following procedure prescribed under the Standard Code.
Since the initial appointment of the respondent/employee is
not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
the Standard Code, the respondent/employee cannot claim
that his service should be regularized in view of Clause 4(c)
of MSO, which provides that an employee who has worked
for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year is
entitled for benefit of permanency in service.
24) The contention of Mr. Mehadia, learned Advocate
that yardsticks which are applicable to the public
employment may not be made applicable to employment
with a private college, cannot be accepted since the relevant
statutory provision i.e. the Standard Code provides the
procedure to be followed by making appointments of non-
teaching employees in an affiliated college. It is now well
settled that in order to claim benefit of Clause 4(c) of MSO
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
for the purpose of regularization in service, it must be proved
that the initial appointment was made legally in accordance
with statutory provisions.
25) As regards the contention with respect to
regularization being granted to two other employees, the
evidence on record is silent with respect to the procedure that
was adopted while granting them appointments. In the
absence of clear evidence in this regard, it will be difficult to
apply principle of parity for granting relief of regularization
in service to the respondent/complainant.
26) The claim for regularization in service is,
therefore, not tenable. The impugned order passed by the
learned Industrial Court to the extent it directs the petitioners
to accord status of permanent employee to the complainant
w.e.f. 01/08/2007, is liable to be set aside.
27) Apart from prayer for regularization, the
respondent/employee has also made a prayer for payment of
salary in the prescribed pay scale. The said relief is also
granted by the learned Industrial Court. Mr. Sanyal, the
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
learned Advocate criticized the judgment passed by the
learned Industrial Court on the ground that the learned
Industrial Court failed to appreciate that the
respondent/employee was appointed in service as a part time
employee on a temporary basis and as such, he was not
entitled to the benefit of salary in the prescribed pay scale.
He further contends that the appointment of the
respondent/employee is also not made by following
prescribed procedure and on this count also the relief of
payment of salary in prescribed scale cannot be granted to
him. The learned Advocate vehemently argues that the
principle for equal pay for equal work cannot be made
applicable in the present case both, on facts and also in law.
28) Per contra, Mr. Mehadia, learned Advocate points
out to the findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court
to contend that the work performed by the
respondent/employee is of regular nature and that the
respondent/employee is not a part time employee. The
learned Advocate further contends that the petitioners who
have extracted the work of regular employee from the
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
respondent/employee cannot deny benefit of payment in the
prescribed pay scale to him.
29) The issue as regards the entitlement of
respondent/employee to receive the salary in the prescribed
scale is no longer res integra. The legal position in this regard
is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab and ors. V/s. Jagjit Singh and ors. reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 148. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt
with almost every judgment dealing with the principle of
equal pay for equal work and has held that the temporary
employees are also entitled for the benefit for equal pay for
equal work. However, it is held that such temporary
employees will not be entitled to the benefit of increments.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that such
temporary employees will be entitled to lowest grade of
salary prescribed under the relevant pay scale along with
such other allowances as are paid to regular employees. It is
also held that the benefit of revision in pay scale will also
have to be accorded to such employees. The contentions that
the temporary employees who are not working against
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
regular posts came to be categorically rejected. Likewise the
contention that the temporary employees were not appointed
by following due procedure prescribed for appointment of
regular employees and therefore, they are not entitled to
salary in the prescribed pay scale, is also rejected by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will be pertinent to state that the
judgment also takes note and deals with Constitution Bench
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Karnataka V/s. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
30) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case
of Jagjit Singh and ors. (supra) that the Constitution Bench
judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) distinguishes right
of regularization and right of temporary/ad-hoc/daily wager
employees to receive equal pay for equal work. It is held that
although the Constitution Bench holds that services of ad-hoc
employees or daily wagers cannot be regularized as a matter
of course, such employees cannot be deprived of their right
of equal pay for equal work, which is a facet of Article 39 of
the Constitution of India. It is held that employees who are
appointed as ad-hoc or temporary employees are entitled to
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
receive salary at par with regularly appointed employees and
that their claim cannot be denied on the basis of artificial
distinction of they being ad-hoc or temporary employees if
the nature of work performed by them is same as that
performed by regular employees. It is held that to deny the
guarantee of equal pay for equal amount of work will
tantamount to exploitative enslavement of employees and
that such tendencies must be discouraged in a welfare State.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wagers, ad-
hoc appointees, contractual employees and employees
appointed on casual basis etc. are entitled to same salary as is
paid to regular employees, provided that the work performed
by them is the same as that performed by regular employees.
In view of clear enunciation of law in Jagjit Singh and ors.
(supra), there cannot be any shred of doubt that the
respondent/complainant will be entitled to payment of salary
at the lowest level in the prescribed pay scale for the post of
Laboratory Attendant. The respondent/complainant will,
however, not be entitled for increments in the scale. It is also
clarified that benefit of pay revision as per recommendations
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
of Successive Pay Commissions will also have to be granted, if
the same is accepted/adopted by the State Government.
31) The same view is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission and
another V/s. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and ors., reported in
(2017) 4 SCC 449 and Sabha Shanker Dube V/s. Divisional
Forest Officer and ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 220.
32) Both these judgments hold that the employees
working on temporary basis are entitled to salary at the
lowest grade in the prescribed pay scale along with
allowances for the post, on which, they are working and
further that such employees will not be entitled for regular
increments, which are only available to regular employees.
33) It must also be stated that although the
appointment of respondent/complainant is not strictly in
accordance with the provisions of Standard Code, the
appointment is also not secured by any unfair means. Such is
not even the case of the petitioners.
34) The contention of Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate
that since the petitioner No. 1-college is an unaided
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
institution, directions for making salary in the prescribed
scale should not be issued, is recorded only for being
rejected. The petitioner No. 1-college although is an unaided
institution, is under an obligation to pay salaries to its
employees in accordance with prescribed pay scales and
cannot seek any exemption from the same on the ground that
it is unaided institution. In this regard, it must be stated that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Secretary,
Mahatma Gandhi Mission (supra) categorically dealt with the
said contention. In the said case, while accepting
recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the Government
of Maharashtra issued Government Resolution dated
12/08/2009, which provided for applicability of provisions of
the 6th Pay Commission for aided private educational
institutions only, thereby excluding unaided institutions.
Dealing with the challenge to the said GR to the extent it
excluded unaided institutions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set
aside the said GR and held that the benefits of the 6 th Pay
Commission were required to be extended to the unaided
institutions as well and accordingly, the GR dated
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
12/08/2009 was set aside to the extent to which it excluded
employees working in unaided colleges for securing benefit of
the 6th Pay Commission.
35) As regards, the facts of the present case, the
learned Industrial Court has referred to admissions on the
part of the petitioner No. 1-college during the course of cross-
examination and has found that the respondent/employee
was not a part time employee and that all throughout, since
the date of his initial appointment, he has rendered service
for more than 240 days with the petitioner No. 1-college.
The learned Industrial Court has referred to the documents
filed on record by the petitioner No. 1 to compute the
number of days during which the service is rendered by the
respondent/employee with the petitioner No. 1/-college. The
learned Industrial Court has rightly found that the work
performed by the petitioner is regular work of a perennial
nature. It appears from the record that during Summer
Vacations, the services of the petitioners were discontinued
and thereafter, the respondent /employee was re-appointed
upon commencement of next Academic Session.
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
36) It must also be stated that the learned Industrial
Court has referred to a categorical admission by the
petitioner No.1-college during the course of cross-
examination of its witness, wherein it was specifically
admitted that the complainant was working as a full time
employee ever since the date of his initial appointment. The
contention of the petitioners that the respondent/employee is
not entitled to receive salary in the pay scale on the ground
that he is not a full time employee and that the work
performed by him is not of a regular nature is, therefore,
liable to be rejected.
37) It is informed that the recommendations of 7 th
Pay Commission are implemented in the petitioner No. 1-
college and the benefits thereof are extended to employees
who are working in grant-in-aid sections. The benefit of 7th
Pay Commission cannot be denied to employment working in
non-grant sections in view of judgment in the case of
Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (supra).
38) In view of the aforesaid, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the petitioners have indulged in unfair
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
labour practice under item 6 and 9 of Scheduled IV of the
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The judgment by the learned
Industrial Court will have to be sustained to the extent to
which the directions for payment of salary in the scale is
issued, however, with a clarification that the
respondent/employee will not be entitled for increments
prescribed.
39) In view of the aforesaid, the following order is
passed:-
ORDER
The Writ Petitions are partly allowed by modifying
Clause (4) of the operative orders in the following judgments
and orders passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court
No. 3, Nagpur, as per Clauses (a) to (d) below:-
Date of judgment Case Nos.
28.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.114 of 2012
27.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.112 of 2012
28.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.117 of 2012
29.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.119 of 2012
01.04.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.124 of 2012
27.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.113 of 2012
30.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.120 of 2012
29.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.118 of 2012
30.03.2019 Complaint (ULP) No.123 of 2012
(a) direction for granting permanent status to respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.1479.20.odt
(original complainants) in all the cases with effect from their
initial appointment is quashed and set aside;
(b) the petitioners are directed to pay salary to the
respondents (original complainants) in the pay scale for the
post on which they are working as per 6 th Pay Commission
from the date of their initial appointment and as per the 7th
Pay Commission from the date on which the same are
implemented along with Dearness Allowance and all other
allowances as are payable to regular employees, however, the
respondents (original complainants) will not be entitled to
receive increments in the pay scale;
(c) the petitioners are directed to pay arrears of difference
in the amount of wages payable to the respondents (original
complainants) and wages actually paid to them on or before
30/09/2026, if not already paid; and
(d) the petitioners are further directed to pay regular salary
to the respondents (original complainants) in the aforesaid
terms henceforth if it is not already being paid.
Parties to bear their own costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Tanmay/Khapekar
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/05/2026 14:37:05
