Safiya Malik

A recent decision by the Bombay High Court has upheld the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, directing the state government to regularize the services of hospital workers who had been engaged in temporary positions for years. The judgment aligns with the findings of the Industrial Court, which had earlier determined that the government’s failure to grant permanent employment to these workers constituted an unfair labor practice.

The case involved 122 hospital workers employed at government medical facilities, including ward boys, aayas, sweepers, and other Class IV employees. Many of them had been working for over a decade in government hospitals across Maharashtra without being granted permanent employment despite the availability of sanctioned positions.

In 1996, the affected employees, through their registered trade union, Sarva Mazdoor Sangh, approached the Industrial Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.248 of 1996 under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complaint alleged that the state’s continued engagement of these workers in a temporary capacity constituted an unfair labor practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act.

The Industrial Court delivered its judgment on July 29, 2003, determining that the workers had been denied the benefit of permanency. The court directed the state government to assess their suitability and regularize them against available vacancies. The judgment specifically instructed the government to consider the workers listed in Exhibit-A collectively with Exhibit C-13 of the complaint.

Despite the Industrial Court's decision, the government did not implement the order, leading the affected employees to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) through an Original Application (OA No. 756 of 2020), seeking enforcement of the Industrial Court’s directive.

The government contended that the workers had only been retained in employment due to various court orders, and their engagement did not constitute regular employment. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi & Others (2006) 4 SCC 1, arguing that the workers did not meet the conditions for regularization as outlined in a government resolution dated December 7, 2015. According to the government, the resolution required that employees seeking regularization must have completed at least ten years of continuous service as of March 31, 2007.

The government also cited additional Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (2021) 20 SCC 290, Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. v. Digambara Rao (2004) 8 SCC 262, and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Krishan Gopal (2021) 18 SCC 707, arguing that state employees could not claim regularization if they were engaged on a temporary basis without following constitutional procedures.

The High Court examined the Tribunal's judgment, which determined that the Industrial Court’s 2003 decision had already established the workers’ right to regularization. The Tribunal noted that the government’s failure to implement the Industrial Court's decision led to unfair labor practices, contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

The court observed, "The names of the applicants in Original Application No. 756 of 2020 were mentioned in Exhibit-A collectively with Exhibit-13, as referred to in the Industrial Court’s order dated 29/07/2003. The respondents had succeeded in the complaint filed by their trade union, and the directions issued therein operate in their favor."

The court considered the government’s argument that the workers did not meet the requirements for regularization due to their service period falling outside the prescribed timeframe. However, the Tribunal had already concluded that the Industrial Court’s judgment was binding, and the state was obligated to comply with the decision.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556, which stated, "The Industrial Court’s adjudication under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 remains binding and cannot be invalidated by subsequent government resolutions."

The High Court also cited Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2019) III CLR 639 SC, where the Supreme Court upheld the right of workers to be regularized once unfair labor practices had been established.

The court held that the respondents were not seeking fresh appointments but rather the enforcement of an existing court order that had already granted them the right to regularization. The court noted, "Since the adjudication by the Industrial Court had become final, it was binding on the petitioners and they could not attempt to disregard the same."

The judgment further stated, "If the directions issued by the Industrial Court therein had been complied with, there would have been no occasion for the respondents to have thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.756 of 2020. Through the said proceedings, the respondents were in fact seeking benefit of the earlier adjudication in their favor by way of implementation of the directions issued by the Industrial Court in their favor."

Additionally, the court stated, "In our view, the Tribunal has considered all relevant aspects and has granted relief to the respondents principally on the ground that the respondents were found entitled for regularisation of their services in view of adjudication of their complaint that was filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1971. All relevant aspects have been taken into consideration coupled with the fact that the respondents were engaged in unskilled work for a period of more than 10 years. We do not find that there is any jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal when it allowed the Original Application on 14/02/2022."

The court concluded, "For aforesaid reasons, we do not find any exceptional case made out warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioners are granted time of four weeks to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal."

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Ors v. Mayavati Ramchandra Sawant & Ors.

Neutral Citation:2025: BHC-AS:9592-DB

Case Number: WP-10793-22

Bench: Justice A.S. Chandurkar & Justice Rajesh Patil

[Read/Download order]