High Court
Facts
1 wp 4274.25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 4274 OF 20251.Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhari,North Maharashtra University,Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon.2.Vice Chancellor,Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhary,North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon,Taluka and District Jalgaon.3.Registrar,Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhary,North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon,Taluka and District Jalgaon.Petitioners.(Orig Resp 1 to 3)VERSUS1.Kishor Digambar Gadheage 56 years, Occ. Service,R/o Rembhote, Tq. Raver,District Jalgaon.2.Premraj Bhimrao Baviskar,age 47 years, Occ. Service,R/o Jaihind Colony, Shirpur,Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule.3.Anna Ananda Sonawane,age 52 years, Occ. Service,R/o Ahire, Tq. Dharangaon,District Jalgaon.4.Shashikant Gulabrao Chavan,age 50 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Anjan Vihire, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon.5.Vishwanath Babulal Thakare,age 52 yrs, Occ. Service, 2 wp 4274.25.odtR/o Morane, Tq. & Dist Dhule.6.Bhagwat Dadaji Patil,age 48 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Maheji Tq. Pachora, Dist Jalgaon.7.Krushna Raghunath Badgujar,age 48 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Kadholi, Tq. Erandol, District Jalgaon.8.Yuvraj Arjun Patil,age 46 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Kadholi, Tq. Erandol,District Jalgaon.9.Vijay Shantaram Mali,age 49 years, Occ. Service,R/o Lasur, Tq. Chopda,District Jalgaon.10.Vilas Ashok Baviskar,age 52 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,District Jalgaon.11.Rajendra Narayan Mahale,age 52 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Shelwad, Tq. Bodwad,District Jalgaon.12.Bhikan Kashinath Umare,age 68 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Vaijnath, Tq. Erandol,District Jalgaon.13.Manjoor Mansoor Shaikh,age 52 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Aksa Nagar, Mehrun,Tq. & District Jalgaon.14.Manohar Baban Patil,age 56 yrs, Occ. Service, 3 wp 4274.25.odtR/o Anjan Vihire, Tq. Dharangaon,Dist. Jalgaon.15.Rajendra Vasantrao Patil,age 56 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o c/o Shri Sanju Shalik Patil,Plot No.6, Gut no.347/1, Shriram Samarth Colony, Pimprala Shivar, Near Manav Seva School,Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.16.Joint Director,Higher and Technical Education,Jalgaon Division, JalgaonMaharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran Building,First Floor, Jalgoan, Dist. Jalgaon.17.Director of Education (Higher Education),Maharashtra State, Central Building,Pune.18.Chief Secretary,The State of Maharashtra,Higher & Technical Education,Department, Mantralaya, Vistar Bhavan,Mumbai. Respondents/ No.1to15 orig complainants Resp 16 to 18 orig resp no.3 to 6....Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. R. Patil Advocate for Respondents 1 to 15 : Mr. V. B. Patil AGP for Respondents 16 to 18 : Mr. P D Patil …CORAM :S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.Dated:June 11, 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consentof the parties, matter is heard finally at admission stage. 4 wp 4274.25.odt2.Petitioners impugns the order dated 13.3.2025passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon below Exhibit U-15 incomplaint ULP no.22 of 2024 by which petitioners are directedto provide work to respondents from 1.4.2025 to 15.11.2025.3.Respondent nos.1 to 15 filed complaint ULP No.22of 2024 under item nos.5,6,9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of theMRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for short said Act) before theIndustrial Court, Jalgaon, contending that, they have beenworking on daily wages with Petitioner University since 1995as Hamal/helper/peon and there exists employer-employeerelationship between them. On 21.8.2015 University passed aResolution and decided to provide work to them on contractsystem. Therefore, they filed proceeding before IndustrialCourt seeking relief of permanency in service. Meanwhile,enraged by action of respondents, University passed Resolutiondated 10.12.2024 not to provide work to respondent nos.1 to15. It is, therefore, contended that University is guilty of unfairLabour Practice and filed an application seeking interim reliefunder section 30(2) of the said act for directions againstUniversity to provide them work for 11 months as per clause 4 5 wp 4274.25.odtof the Resolution dated 21.8.2015 and protection of theirservices.4.University appeared before the Industrial Tribunaland refuted claim of petitioners contending that complaint isbarred by limitation. Respondent nos.1 to 15 had previouslyinstituted complaint ULP no.53 of 2003 and 28 of 2003seeking regularization of their services, which has beenunconditionally withdrawn. Hence, present complaint ULP ishit by principles of resjudicata. It is further contention of theUniversity that respondent nos.1 to 15 were contractualemployees for fixed term as per resolution dated 21.8.2015.They committed breach of conditions of contractualappointment. Hence, they are not entitled for any relief. It isfurther contention of University that complaint ULP is notmaintainable before Industrial Court against the University asUniversity is not ‘Industry’ as defined under Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. After considering rival contentions, Industrial Courtdecided interim application filed below Exhibit U-15 anddirected University to provide work to the respondent nos.1 to15 from 1.4.2025 to 15.11.2025 as per Resolution dated21.8.2015. 6 wp 4274.25.odt5.Mr. S.R. Patil, learned advocate appearing forpetitioners submits that respondent nos.1 to 15 werecontractual employees for fixed period. Their appointmentsare governed by stipulations under resolution dated 21.8.2015passed by University, which has effect of agreement betweenthe parties. Respondent nos.1 to 15 have agreed to work asper terms of resolution on contractual basis and cannot claimpermanency. He submits that employment was provided toskilled/unskilled daily wagers on contract basis as pernegotiations and deliberations between the parties.Appointments are not against substantive sanctioned posts.Hence, employees do not have right of regularization orpermanency in service. Mr. Patil, learned advocate appearingfor petitioners would further submit that term of contractualappointment of respondent nos.1 to 15 is expired which haseffect of termination of their service. The Industrial Courtcannot grant relief of reinstatement under the provisions of theIndustrial Disputes Act. Similarly, complaint itself is nottenable as University does not fall within the meaning ofIndustry. Mr. Patil, would rely upon observations of this Courtin case of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University andanother Vs. Hon’ble Member and others reported in (2016) 2
Legal Reasoning
7 wp 4274.25.odtMh.L.J. 454 to contend that the respondents-employees haveno right to seek regularization on post which fall withindomain of public employment in absence of appointmentthrough proper channel.6.Per contra, Mr. V.B. Patil, learned advocateappearing for respondents/employee vehemently submits thatas on date of filing of complaint, petitioners were in service interms of agreement. The petitioners are continuously in servicesince 1995, however, they are deprived of regularization ofservice and benefit of permanency. Mr. V.B. Patil, would submitthat Industrial Court is empowered to entertain the applicationunder section 30(2) of the Act and protect conditions of serviceof employees during pendency of proceeding before Court. Hewould submit that now it is well settled that University fallswithin the meaning of ‘Industry’ and Industrial Court isempowered to grant relief to employees like the petitioners.Therefore, jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under MRTP andPULP Act is very much available for redressal of grievances ofthe respondents/employees.7.Having considered submissions advanced, it canbe observed that, services of respondents/employees have been 8 wp 4274.25.odtavailed by the University since 1995 on various posts likeHamal, Helper and Peon. On 21.8.2015 University passed aResolution and decided to provide work to respondents andsimilarly situated employees on contract system for 11 monthsby giving technical break of four days. Services of therespondents/employees were availed in light of the aforesaidpolicies. Respondents/employees approached Industrial Courtby filing the complaint ULP No.22 of 2024 seeking relief ofregularization of services and benefit of permanency. Itappears that the respondent/University passed a Resolutiondated 10.12.2024 to not to allot work torespondents/employees as they approached Court seekingregularization, which led to filing application for grant ofinterim relief. The Industrial Court allowed application ExhibitU-15 observing that Respondents/employees have been deniedemployment only because they approached Court, whereassimilarly situated other employees have been retained inservice. List of those employees is placed on record ofIndustrial Court at Exhibit C-10.8.Perusal of record shows that on the date whencomplaint ULP 22 of 2024 was filed, respondents/employees 9 wp 4274.25.odtwere in service as per agreement dated 11.1.2024 and theirterm was yet to expire. Respondent/University in a meetingdated 3.2.2024 decided to not to allot work torespondents/employees. Apparently, respondents/employeesare victimized alleging that they have flouted conditions ofcontract. In this background, Industrial Court is justified inexercising jurisdiction under section 30(2) read with section 33of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and direct petitioners tocontinue services of respondents/employees from 1.4.2025 to15.11.2025.9.Although, Mr. Sandesh Patil, learned advocateappearing for the petitioners would submit thatrespondents/employees would not be entitled to claim relief ofregularization of services or permanency as post held by themunder contractual employment falls within domain of publicemployment, such an issue can be dealt with at the time offinal hearing of complaint. Even, in matter of of RashtrasantTukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (supra) relied by thepetitioners, this Court had issued directions to University totake steps to advertise the posts and consider claim ofemployees who have been working since long by giving age 10 wp 4274.25.odtrelaxation. It is, therefore, clear that respondents/employeescannot be thrown out or kept away from continuity of serviceonly because they approached Court seeking regularization ofservices.10.Even, perusal of impugned order, it is eminent thatUniversity is directed to provide work to therespondents/employees from 1.4.2025 to 15.11.2025, which isin consonance with Resolution passed by the University dated21.8.2015. As such, there is no prejudice to the University.11.So far as point as to maintainability of thecomplaint on the ground that University cannot be given statusof industry, such an issue is elaborately considered andanswered by this Court in case of Mumbai Vidyapeeth KamgarSanghtana Vs. University of Mumbai (Writ Petition No.2976 of2018). The observations made therein are prima faciesufficient to negate contentions of petitioners as tomaintainability of the complaint before Industrial Court.12.In the result, respondents/employees have madeout prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The learnedIndustrial Court has rightly appreciated pleadings and material
Decision
11 wp 4274.25.odtand passed the impugned order which need not be disturbed inexercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the result, WritPetition sans merit, hence dismissed. No costs. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )…aaa-