Bombay HC Says Delay In Deciding Reference No Ground To Deny Relief | Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995 With Compensation For Superannuated Or Deceased
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav has ordered the reinstatement of 53 hospital workers, setting aside the Industrial Tribunal's award of lump sum compensation. The Court directed that all eligible workmen named in the original complaint be reinstated forthwith in the hospital within one week from the date of the judgment, without entitlement to back-wages or continuity in service, but with entitlement to retirement benefits in accordance with law. It further directed that workmen who had reached superannuation age or had expired in the interim would be entitled, through themselves or their legal heirs, to a revised lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs per workman, replacing the earlier award of Rs. 1 lakh. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the workers were employees of the corporation, their termination was illegal, and the alleged contractor's role was unproven, but disagreed with the denial of reinstatement solely due to delays in adjudication.
The matter involved two cross writ petitions challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 25 April 2019 in Reference (IT) No. 41 of 2005. One petition was filed by a registered trade union representing 53 workmen employed as sweepers, aayas, and ward boys in a municipal hospital. The union contested the Tribunal's refusal to order reinstatement despite findings in their favour. The second petition was filed by the municipal corporation, challenging the Tribunal's finding that the workmen were employees of the corporation and that their termination was illegal.
The municipal hospital, run by the corporation, was attached to a medical college also operated by the corporation. The workmen, all members of the petitioner union, had been engaged in regular duties at the hospital. The corporation maintained they were employed through a contractor and therefore not entitled to permanency. The union's initial complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act for permanency was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, leading to the present industrial dispute over their termination.
The union alleged that the workmen worked alongside permanent staff, their names appeared in ward attendance and work registers, and they had each completed more than 240 days of service annually for several years before their oral termination between February and March 1995 without notice or retrenchment benefits. They claimed the contractor arrangement was a sham and that the contractor lacked statutory licensing.
The Tribunal framed five issues, including whether the workmen were employees of the corporation, whether their termination was illegal, whether they were entitled to reinstatement with back-wages, whether they were employed by the contractor, and whether the contractor held a valid license. It found in favour of the workmen on the first two issues and against the corporation on the latter two, but denied reinstatement and back-wages, awarding Rs. 1 lakh per workman instead.
Before the High Court, counsel for the union argued that once the Tribunal had found the workers to be employees whose termination was illegal, reinstatement should have followed as a consequential relief. Counsel for the corporation contended the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the workers were employed by the contractor, and no sanctioned posts existed for them.
The Court reviewed the evidence, noting the union's witnesses testified to being recruited directly by hospital officials via public notices and interviews, working under supervision of hospital staff, and having attendance recorded alongside permanent staff. The corporation's witness admitted the work was integrated with that of permanent employees and could not confirm the contractor's role or even identity. The Court noted the absence of any documentary proof of the alleged contract and the corporation's failure to produce such evidence despite opportunities.
The Court held that the Tribunal's denial of reinstatement solely due to the 14-year delay in adjudicating the reference was not warranted in law. It found the delay could not be held against the workmen and that the overwhelming evidence supported reinstatement.
Justice Jadhav recorded: "Delay in the legal system cannot be held against granting of appropriate relief to the workmen." He stated: "Once the Tribunal has come to the definite conclusion that these workmen are employees of the Corporation; that they performed work along with all other permanent employees of the Corporation; that they were inducted in the work of the Hospital; that their attendance was marked along with other regular permanent employees of the Corporation; that their work was supervised by the Nurses, Mukadams and Supervisors of the Corporation; that their services were terminated illegally and without following the due process of law; that the Corporation failed to prove that they were appointed and employed by a Contractor; that the Corporation and the Contractor both failed to place on record the valid license of the Contractor under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, then... payment of compensation would be adequate, that too meagre compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each... is not a correct decision."
He further observed: "Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done. The conclusion in the present case has been arrived at only because of the delay in deciding the Reference and nothing else. There is no other reason whatsoever to preclude the Court to deviate from granting appropriate relief."
The Court stated that the corporation had not produced any evidence of a contract with the alleged contractor or of the contractor's involvement in employing the workmen, stating: "Corporation has not produced any such evidence whatsoever before the Tribunal neither it has produced any evidence before me." The witness for the corporation admitted ignorance of the contractor's identity, which the Court described as "prima facie clinching evidence" against the corporation's case.
The Court also noted that the union's witnesses were not discredited and that documentary evidence, such as inspection reports and shift schedules, corroborated their claims of employment and integration with permanent staff. It recorded that the work was of a "permanent and perennial nature" and that the corporation's own witness confirmed this.
The Court ordered that all workmen named in the union's original complaint be reinstated forthwith, with joining to occur within one week of the judgment. It specified that the reinstated workmen would not receive back-wages or continuity in service but would be entitled to retirement benefits in accordance with law. The Dean of the Rajiv Gandhi Medical College and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital, Kalwa, was directed to confirm, scrutinise, and verify the joining of these workmen.
The union was directed to provide the corporation with names and details of workmen who had reached superannuation or had died in the interim. After verification, such workmen or their legal heirs would be entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs per workman, determined by the Court, with legal heirs to be identified based on appropriate documentation submitted to the corporation. The previous award of Rs. 1 lakh per workman was deleted and replaced by this revised compensation order.
The rest of the Tribunal's award dated 25 April 2019 was upheld, except for the modification regarding Issue No. 3 concerning reinstatement and compensation.
Resultantly Writ Petition No.2644 of 2020 partly succeeds.
Writ Petition No.10432 of 2023 fails.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Jane Cox, Advocate i/by Ms. Karishma Rao a/w Mr. Vinayak Suthar and Mr. Pranav Pawar
For the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Ajit Pitale and Mr. Siddharth Pitale
Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh v. The Commissioner, Thane Mahanagar Palika & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:33739
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2644 of 2020; Writ Petition No. 10432 of 2023
Bench: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
