Bombaynagpur High Court · 2025

WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt10 Ori. Respondent No.42The State of Maharashtra, Through itsSecretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag,Mantralaya, Vistar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 032.WITH WRIT PETITION NO . 2970 OF 2025 PETITIONERori. respondent No.1 to 3.:-1Nagpur Municipal Corporation,through its Commissioner, havingoffice at Civil Lines, Nagpur.2Nagpur Municipal Corporation,through its Health Department, havingoffice at Civil Lines, Nagpur.3Nagpur Municipal Corporation,through its Zonal Office, LakadganjZone, Zone No.8, Lakadganj, Nagpur...VERSUS..RESPONDENTS Ori. complainant:-1Smt. Laxmibai W/o Lokmitra Babulkar,aged about 54 years, occupation:Service, R/o. Old Mangalwari,Gangabai Ghat Road, Bhandewadi,Bagadganj, Nagpur-08. Ori. Respondent No.42The State of Maharashtra, Through itsSecretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag,Mantralaya, Vistar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 032.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No.4968 of 2023 and4967 of 2023Mr. S. N. Bhattad, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.4968 of 2023and 4967 of 2023 and for petitioners in other respective petitions. Mr. U. P. Aakare, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in respective petitionsMr. S. B. Bissa AGP for respondent/State in respective petitions.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt11CORAM:ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.RESERVED ON:13.10. 2025 PRONOUNCED ON22.12. 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardfinally with consent of learned counsel for the respectiveparties.2)All these petitions give rise to identical questionsof law and the facts of the petitions are almost similar,therefore, the petitions are being decided by a commonjudgment. For the purpose of convenience, facts of writpetition No.4722 of 2025 will be taken into consideration.3)Petitioners are original respondent Nos. 1 to 3and respondents are original complainant. Petitioners will bereferred as, “NMC” and the respondent No.1 as,“complainant” for the sake of brevity. 4)Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.4722 of2025 had filed a complaint under Section 28 of theMaharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention ofUnfair Labour Practices Act,1971, (hereinafter referred to as WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt12“MRTU & PULP Act” for the purpose of brevity), beingComplaint ULP No.413 of 2015. It is the case of thecomplainant that he was appointed as a Safai Karmachariwith NMC on the post of cleaner/sweeper w.e.f. 27.07.1993.Initially wages were paid at the rate of Rs.25/- per day. Thewages were increased from time to time to Rs.294/- per day.According to the complainant he has rendered more than 240days of service in each calendar year ever since hisappointment and his working was satisfactory, clean andunblemished. The complainant raised a grievance that workof a regular employee was being extracted from him whiletreating him to be a substitute worker for a period of around22 years. The complainant alleged that the NMC hadindulged in unfair trade practice under Item 6 and 9 ofSchedule-IV of MRTU & PULP, Act. It is also contended thatthe service of complainant is governed by the provisions ofBombay Industrial Relations Act & Industrial Employment(Standing Orders), Act, 1946 and Model Standing Orders(“MSO”) framed under the said Act. According to thecomplainant, in view of Clause 4(C) of the MSO he is entitled WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt13to the benefit of regularization in service upon completion of240 days of work in one calendar year. The complainant hasreferred to resolutions dated 27.11.2015 and 21.01.2016passed by the NMC for creation of 4,500 and odd posts ofSafai Karmacharis. It is, however, stated that NMC failed totake effective steps for implementation of the saidresolutions, resulting in serious hardship to the SafaiKarmacharis like the complainant. Reference was also madeto resolution dated 30.11.2009, whereby benefit ofregularization in service was granted to certain employeeswho were working as Safai Karmacharis.5)The NMC filed its written statement opposing thecomplaint. It raised a contention that since the complainantwas not appointed by following the procedure prescribed forappointment of a regular employee, the claim ofregularization made by the complainant was not tenable. Therespondent also contended that there was no sanctioned postagainst which services of the complainant could beregularized. It is stated that the complainant was working asa substitute Safai Karmachari and was not entitled to claim WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt14benefit of regularization merely on the ground that he hadcompleted 240 days of service in a calendar year. The NMCalso contended that Model Standing Orders are notapplicable since it has its own Certified Standing Orders. It iscontended that apart from Certified Standing Orders, serviceconditions are also governed by the provisions ofMaharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981. Lastly, the NMCraised a contention that the State Government had grantedapproval for creation of 4407 supernumerary posts of SafaiKarmacharis and pursuant to the said GovernmentResolution, appointment order dated 28.02.2020 was issuedin favour of the complainant on a supernumerary post as aregular employee. It is stated that the employees are notentitled to benefit of previous service as per the saidappointment order. A contention is raised that since theappointment order is accepted unconditionally, complainantscannot seek benefit of previous employment in view of clause19 of the appointment order which prohibits the employeesfrom claiming benefit of the previous service. It is contendedthat the said clause is fully binding on the complainant. Apart WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt15from this, technical ground is also raised that complaint filedon behalf of individual complainant was not maintainable. 6)The learned Industrial Court framed issues in thematter on which the respective parties recorded theirevidence. After hearing the parties the learned IndustrialCourt has allowed the complaint vide judgment and orderdated 30.09.2024. The learned Industrial Court has granted adeclaration that the NMC had indulged in unfair labourpractice under Items 6 and 9 in Schedule IV of MRTU &PULP, Act and directed it to cease and desist from continuingthe same. Further directions are issued to submit proposal tothe State Government to grant benefit of permanency to thecomplainant on completion of 240 days of service andfurther upon acceptance of the proposal to grant allconsequential benefits including pension and gratuity. Similarorders are passed in cases of several other Safai Karmacharis.The said orders are subject matter of challenge in the presentwrit petitions.7)Mr. Sharad Bhattad, learned Advocate for thepetitioner, raised a preliminary objection that complaint filed WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt16by the individual employees is not maintainable and as such,the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this groundalone. He contends that even if the case of the complainantsis taken on their face value and accepted to be true, the casewould fall under Schedule IV, Item 6 and not under Item 9.He further contends that a complaint with respect to unfairlabour practice under Schedule IV, Item 6 can be entertainedonly at the behest of a recognized union, in view of Section21 of the MRTU and PULP Act.8) The contention is liable to be rejected in view of thesettled legal position that Standing Orders framed under theBombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR, Act) constituteservice conditions and failure to follow Model StandingOrders and/or deprive the employees of rights flowingtherefrom amounts to an unfair labour practice underSchedule IV, Item 9. Legal position in this regard is wellsettled by a catena of decisions of this Court, including in thecase of Narendra Thakre Vs. NMC, reported in (2006) 3 AIRBomR, 551.9)Apart from this, the record indicates that there is WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt17no recognized union to represent or espouse the cause of thecomplainants and therefore, the complainants will be entitledto file individual complaints even with respect to unfairlabour practice under Schedule IV, Item 6, in view of theproviso to Section 21 of the Act.10)Since, the foundation of the claim of theemployees’ is clause 4(C) of the Model Standing Orders, itwill be appropriate to decide as to whether service conditionsof the employees will be governed by MSO. It is the case ofthe employees that their services are governed by MSO. Asagainst this, the contention of NMC is that MSO are notapplicable to NMC since there are separate certified StandingOrders which are duly sanctioned under the provisions of theAct. 11)Mr. Sharad Bhattad, the learned Advocate for theNMC, contends that the learned Labour Court had erred inallowing the complaint filed by the respondent-employee. Itis his contention that NMC is a public body and, therefore,appointments in NMC are required to be made by following aprescribed procedure. The learned Advocate contends that WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt18the initial appointment of the respondent-employee withNMC was not made by following the procedure prescribed forappointment of regular employees and therefore thecomplainants cannot claim regularization or permanency. Thelearned Advocate has placed reliance on judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of KarnatakaVs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in support of hiscontention that since the complainants were not appointed byfollowing procedure prescribed for appointment of regularemployees, they cannot claim regularization in service as amatter of right. The learned Advocate further contends thatalthough in the matter of MSRTC Vs. Casteribe RajyaParivahan Karmachari Sanghatna, reported in (2009) 8 SCC556, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that the lawlaid down in Umadevi (supra) would not result in creatingany fetter on Courts dealing with labour laws from grantingrelief to employees who are subjected to unfair labourpractices, relief of regularization in service cannot be grantedunless the service is rendered against a duly sanctioned postand that too by following the prescribed procedure. He WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt19further contends that the judgment also clarifies that creationof a post is beyond the powers of any Court of law andtherefore, creation of post cannot be ordered by a judicialorder. The learned Advocate contends that the learnedIndustrial Court has erred in granting declaration that NMChad indulged in unfair labour practice by continuing servicesof complainants as daily wagers although the complainantshad not rendered service against any sanctioned vacant post.12)The learned Advocate argues that in view ofSection 51(4) of the Maharashtra Municipal CorporationsAct, the power to create a post is not vested with NMC and,therefore, it was not within the competence of NMC toregularize services of the respondent-employee since postswere not in existence.13) In furtherance of his contention that there is noright of regularization in service vested with any employee inthe absence of a sanctioned post and that creation of post isbeyond the competence of a Court of law, it being necessarilyan administrative function. He further contends that benefitof regularization is granted to the complainants by creating a WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt20supernumerary post, on completion of 20 years service. Hecontends that policy of regularization is an administrativedecision and that the learned Industrial Court was notjustified in directing the NMC to set fresh proposal forregularization of service of complainants on completion of240 days service. The learned Advocate has placed relianceon the following judgments:- (a). MSRTC Vs. Casteribe Rajya ParivahanKarmachari Sanghatana, reported in (2009) 8 SCC556, (b). CEO, ZP, Thane Vs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware,reported in (2023) 1 SCC 456, (c). Union of India Vs. Ilmo Devi, reported in(2021) 20 SCC 290, (d). Hari Nandan Prasad and anr. Vs. FoodCorporation of India, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190, (e). Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club and anr.Vs. Chander Hass and anr., reported in (2008) 1 SCC683.(f). Municipal Council, Tirora Vs. Tulsidas Bidhade, WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt21reported in 2016 (6) MhLJ 867 (D.B.) 14)Apart from the aforesaid decisions, the learnedAdvocate has drawn attention to the judgment by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the matter of ONGC..Vs…Krisan Gopal andothers reported in 2021 18 SCC 707. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt has dealt with the earlier decision in the matter ofONGC Ltd., Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union (PCLU),reported in (2015) 6 SCC 494 and referred the said decisionfor reconsideration to a larger bench in view of the followingobservations:-28.The following propositions would emerge uponanalysing the above decisions:28.1 Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Courtand the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction toorder regularisation, where such a direction would inthe context of public employment offend the provisionscontained in Article 14 of the Constitution.28.2The statutory power of the Labour Court orIndustrial Court to grant relief to workmen includingthe status of permanency continues to exist incircumstances where the employer has indulged in anunfair labour practice by not filling up permanent postseven though such posts are available and by continuingto employ workmen as temporary or daily wage WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt22employees despite their performing the same work asregular workmen on lower wages.28.3.The power to create permanent or sanctionedposts lies outside the judicial domain and where noposts are available, a direction to grant regularisationwould be impermissible merely on the basis of thenumber of years of service.28.4.Where an employer has regularised similarlysituated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, itwould be open to workmen who have been deprived ofthe same benefit on a par with the workmen who havebeen regularised to make a complaint before theLabour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of thebenefit would amount to a violation of Article 14.28.5.In order to constitute an unfair labour practiceunder Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of Vth Scheduleto the ID Act, the employer should be engagingworkmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, andcontinuing them for years, with the object of deprivingthem of the benefits payable to permanent workmen. 29.The decision in PCLU needs to be revisited inorder to set the position in law which it adopts inconformity with the principles emerging from theearlier line of precedent. More specifically, the areas onwhich PCLU needs reconsideration are:29.1 The interpretation placed on the provisions ofCluase 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders.29.2 The meaning and content of an “unfair labour WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt23practice” under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of theVth Schedule to the ID Act.29.3 The limitations, if any, on the power of the Labourand Industrial Courts to order regularisation in theabsence of sanctioned posts. The decision in PCLUwould, in our view, require reconsideration in view ofthe above decisions of this Court and for the reasonswhich we have noted above.15)The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that, primafacie, the law laid down in PCLU is not be in accordance withearlier binding precedents in the matter of Mahatma PhuleAgricultural University V. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Unionreported in (2001) 7 SCC 346, in the matter of SBI Vs. RajaRam reported in (2004) 8 SCC 164, in the matter of SBI Vs.Rakesh Kumar Tewari reported in (2006) 1 SCC 530 and inthe matter of ONGC Ltd., V. Engg. Mazdoor Sangh reported in(2007) 1 SCC 250.16)As against this, the learned Advocates for thecomplainants argue that it is well settled that jurisdiction ofLabour and Industrial Court to grant relief restraining theemployer from indulging in acts of unfair labour practicesextends even in cases where the employer is the Government WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt24or any other authority, such as local body, statutorycorporation, government company, etc,. The learnedAdvocates contend that merely because the employer is alocal body/Municipal Corporation, it cannot claim exemptionfrom applicability of provisions of enactments regulatingrights of employees. It is contended that in case whereemployees are working continuously over a period of years asdaily wagers, thereby depriving them of the right ofregularization and permanency in service, a duty is enjoinedon the Courts of law to grant appropriate relief directing theemployer to desist from indulging in unfair labour practiceand to grant further appropriate relief to the employees, whoare victims of such unfair labour practice. They contend thatfor years together the complainants have been forced to workas daily wagers which is clearly an unfair labour practiceunder Item 6 and 9 in Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP, Act.The learned Advocates contend that the unfair labourpractice by the employer cannot be continued by raising acontention that there exist no post against which services ofemployees can be regularized. The learned Advocates have WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt25placed reliance on the following decisions in support of theircontention:-(a) Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav Vs. State ofMaharashtra, reported in 2019 (3) CLR 639.(b) Jaggo Vs. Union of India and ors, reportedin (2024) SCC online SC 3826.(c) Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam,Ghaziabad, reported in (2025) SCC online 221. (d) Dharam Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in(2025) SCC Online 1735. (e) Judgment dated 08.11.2023 by BombayHigh Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) in WritPetition No.5357 of 2021 in the matter of TheCommissioner, Municipal Corporation of GreaterMumbai Vs. Kachara Vahatuk Shramik Sangh.17)The said judgments are cited in order to contendthat relief of regularization in service can be granted even incases where there is no sanctioned post if the nature of workis perennial. They therefore contend that the contention ofNMC that there were no sanctioned posts against whichservices of the employees could be regularized is liable to berejected.18)Apart from the aforesaid, the learned Advocates also WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt26contend that the employer/NMC is also guilty of favoritismby treating similarly situated employees differently. It iscontended that in identical cases orders of regularization arepassed against NMC and that in compliance of the said ordersNMC has granted relief of regularization to similarlycircumstanced employees. The learned Advocates contendthat the employer/NMC ought not to have filed the presentpetition since orders passed in favour of similarlycircumstanced employees are accepted and followed by it.The learned Advocates have placed reliance on judgment ofthe Learned Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench) incomplaint ULP No.377 of 2011, whereby relief ofregularization in service was granted in favour ofcomplainants in the said case vide judgment and order dated25.06.2018, which was confirmed by this Court videjudgment dated 17.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 2433of 2019. It is pointed out that SLP No.21925 of 2019,challenging the said judgment passed by this Court was alsodismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.01.2020. Thelearned Advocates for the complainants have placed reliance WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt27on the following judgments in support of their contention:-(I) State of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and ors2015 (1) SCC 347 In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Courthas held that in service matters when relief is granted byCourt of law to one set of employees, the employer mustextend the benefit of the judgment to all similarlycircumstanced employees. It is held that failure to extendbenefit of such a decision to employees who had notapproached the Court results in discrimination. It is held thatmerely because some employees do not approach the Court,they cannot be treated differently and that the benefits mustbe extended to them even if they do not approach the Court. (II) Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharahstra 2019 (3) CLR 639 In this case, the employees were working for yearstogether as ad-hoc employees. The work performed by themwas that of regular employees. Their appointment was notmade by following regular selection process. However, similarad-hoc employees who were not selected by regular selectionprocess had approached the Industrial Court wherein order of WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt28regularization in service was passed and the said order wasconfirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of theaforesaid, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the workersin the said case were entitled to benefit of regularization. CONSIDERATION19)The contention of Mr. Bhattad that MSO will notbe applicable to the employees of NMC in view of certifiedStanding Orders is liable to be rejected in view of thejudgment of this Court in the case of NMC Vs. RamchandraSathe, reported in 1992(1) CLR 779.20)The contention of the employees that ordersgranting regularization in service are accepted by NMC incases of identically circumstanced employees is based onjudgment in complaint ULP No.377 of 2011. Perusal of thesaid decision will demonstrate that the employees in the saidcase were appointed as Safai Karmacharis on contractualbasis. The said employees were holding driving licenses andtheir services were utilized by NMC as drivers. Additionalwages were paid to them while work of driver was extracted WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt29from them. The employees filed the complaint contendingthat they were entitled for regularization of service on thepost of driver since they had completed more than 240 daysof service in a calendar year on the said post. The learnedIndustrial Court found that NMC had failed to bring materialon record to substantiate that the appointment of the saidemployees was made as a stop-gap arrangement and thatthey were awarded work of drivers intermittently when theregular drivers were not available for work. It is furtherobserved that four drivers who were juniors to thecomplainants were granted benefit of regularization on theground that they had completed 240 days of service in acalendar year. On this basis a finding was recorded that NMCwas guilty for showing favoritism to one set of employees byignoring the claim of the complainants who were identicallysituated. Perusal of deposition of NMC witnesses which isextracted in paragraph 34 of the judgment by the learnedIndustrial Court indicates that the posts against which orderof regularization was passed were in existence. The saiddecision therefore indicates that order of regularization was WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt30passed in favour of workmen (drivers) who had put in morethan 20 years of service as daily wagers against sanctionedposts. In view of the fact that posts where in existence andrelief of regularization in service was granted to similarlycircumstanced employees, the said complaints were allowed.The distinguishing feature in the present cases is that herethe posts were not sanctioned and therefore the contention offavoritism to one set of employees cannot be accepted.21)The core issue between the parties is as towhether a workman who has put in more than 240 days ofcontinuous service in a calendar year is entitled to benefit ofregularization in service under Clause 4(C) of MSO, even inthe absence of a sanctioned vacant post. 22)The learned Advocates for the workmen haveplaced reliance on following judgments:-Dharamsingh Vs. State of UP, (AIR 2025 SC 3897,) (a)The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that whenworkers perform permanent tasks, equity demands that thosetasks are placed on sanctioned posts so that the workers aretreated with fairness and dignity. The workers in the said case WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt31were employed on the posts of peons, attendants and driversas daily wagers. A proposal for sanction of 14 posts wasforwarded to the State Government by the U.P. HigherEducation Services Commission, which was rejected. Writpetition was filed by the concerned employees challengingthe rejection of proposal for sanction of posts, which wasdismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.Intra-court appeal preferred by the employees was alsodismissed on the ground that there was no vacancy againstwhich services of the petitioners could be regularized andfurther that there were no Rules in place for regularization.In this backdrop, the workers/petitioners approached theHon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowedthe appeal preferred by the workers, holding that therecannot be any justification on the part of the State in refusingto grant sanction to posts despite availability of work which isof perennial nature. It is held that financial constraintscannot be cited as a valid ground for not granting sanction toposts when work of regular and perennial nature isperformed by workers who are engaged as daily wagers. The WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt32ratio of the said judgment is that Government cannot refuseto grant sanction for creation of posts on the ground offinancial constraints. In the said case decision taken by theGovernment refusing to grant sanction for creation of postswas under challenge. The ratio of the said judgment will not,therefore, be directly applicable to the present case. It will beappropriate to refer to paragraph 6 of the judgment, whereinthe Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that although theprincipal challenge in the petitions was to refusal on the partof the State Government to grant sanction to creation ofposts, the petition was decided as if it was merely a case ofregularization in service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has alsoheld that although creation of posts is primarily an executivefunction, the decision of the Government refusing to grantsanction to creation of posts cannot be immune from judicialscrutiny. Jagoo Vs. Union Of India, 2024 Scc Online 3826. (b)In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thatsince the nature of work which was performed by theemployees was of perennial nature and fundamental to the WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt33functioning of the offices of the employer, the contention ofthe employer regarding lack of regular posts against whichservices of the employees could be regularized was liable tobe rejected. It is held that having regard to the nature ofwork, it was necessary to hold that the posts were regularposts irrespective of the method by which the employeeswere initially appointed. It was also found that the employeesin the said case were treated indifferently inasmuch asbenefit of regularization in service was granted to individualswho had put in lesser years of service as compared to theworkers in the said case, although they were performingwork of similar nature. It is held that benefit of regularizationcannot be denied to the employees by treating them astemporary and by taking shelter under proceduralformalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has placed relianceon the Constitution Bench decision in the matter of Uma Deviand has observed that in the said case it was held thatemployees who were engaged against sanctioned posts andhad served continuously for more than 10 years should beconsidered for regularization as a one-time measure. WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt34Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025) SCC online 221(c) In this case, the workers were working continuouslysince the year 1998-99. They had filed a case seekingregularization. Their services were terminated duringconciliation proceedings. They had challenged the saidtermination. In this situation, the matter reached to theHon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowedthe appeal, finding that the work performed by the workerswas integral part of essential municipal functions of theemployer/Municipal Council. It must be stated that in thesaid case, the High Court had held that the employer-Municipal Council was not justified in terminating theservices of the workers abruptly. It had issued ordersdirecting reinstatement in service of the workers as dailywagers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the orderpassed by the High Court to the extent that direction wasissued for re-engagement of the workers on daily wages. Itwas found that the termination of services of the workersduring pendency of conciliation proceedings was in breach ofprovisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and was WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt35accordingly illegal. Accordingly, order of termination wasquashed and set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relief ofreinstatement was granted with continuity, holding that theworkers shall be eligible for all the consequential benefitssuch as seniority and eligibility for future promotions. TheHon’ble Supreme Court directed the Municipal Council toinitiate fair and transparent process for regularization ofservices of the workmen in the said case having regard to theperennial nature of work. The relevant observations of theHon’ble Supreme Court are as under:-12.The evidence, including documentarymaterial and undisputed facts, reveals that theAppellant Workmen performed duties integral tothe Respondent Employer's municipal functionsspecifically the upkeep of parks, horticulturaltasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work isevidently perennial rather than sporadic orproject-based. Reliance on a general "ban on freshrecruitment" cannot be used to deny laborprotections to long-serving workmen. On thecontrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardenersin the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces thenotion that these positions are essential and WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt36ongoing, not intermittent.13.By requiring the same tasks (planting,pruning, general upkeep) from the AppellantWorkmen as from regular Gardeners but stillcompensating them inadequately andinconsistently the Respondent Employer haseffectively engaged in an unfair labour practice.The principle of "equal pay for equal work,"repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot becasually disregarded when workers have servedfor extended periods in roles resembling those ofpermanent employees. Long-standing assignmentsunder the Employer's direct supervision belie anynotion that these were mere short-term casualengagements.16. The High Court did acknowledge theEmployer's inability to re-justify these abruptterminations. Consequently, it orderedengagement on daily wages with some measure ofparity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this onlyperpetuated precariousness: the AppellantWorkmen were left in a marginally improved yetstill uncertain status. While the High Courtrecognized the importance of their work andhinted at eventual regularization, it failed to affordthem continuity of service or meaningful back WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt37wages commensurate with the degree of statutoryviolation evident on record.17.In light of these considerations, theEmployer's discontinuation of the AppellantWorkmen stands in violation of the most basiclabour law principles. Once it is established thattheir services were terminated without adhering toSections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, and that they were engaged inessential, perennial duties, these workers cannotbe relegated to perpetual uncertainty. Whileconcerns of municipal budget and compliance withrecruitment rules merit consideration, suchconcerns do not absolve the Employer of statutoryobligations or negate equitable entitlements.Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump thelegitimate rights of workmen who have servedcontinuously in de facto regular roles for anextended period. Writ Petition No.5357 of 2021 (Bombay High Court CivilAppellate Jurisdiction), Dated 08.11.2023 (d)The principal dispute in the said matter was as towhether the employees in the said case were employees ofthe contractor or direct employees of the Municipal WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt38Corporation. In the context of the said dispute, a contentionwas raised that there was no vacant post in the establishmentof Municipal Corporation. This Court held that the argumentabout lack of posts cannot be accepted and that theCorporation cannot continue to exploit its workers statingthat there is no post against which their services can beregularized. It was directed that the workers in the referencewere entitled to all benefits at par with permanent workers ofthe Municipal Corporation.23) As against this, there are other line of decisionsby the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, on which thelearned Advocate for the NMC has placed reliance. Followingare the decisions on which reliance is placed by the NMC.CEO, ZP, Thane, Vs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware, (2023) 1 SCC 456 (i)In the case of said judgment the workers wereappointed as drivers at Public Health Centre on contractualbasis till finalization of tenders. The appointments were madein the year 2010. Thereafter, transportation tender wasfinalized in the year 2021 and services of the WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt39employees/drivers were terminated on 15.07.2021, in viewof allotment of work of transportation to a third agency. Thetermination was effected after a period of around 11 years ofservice rendered by the drivers on contractual basis. Thepetition preferred by the drivers was allowed by the HighCourt. Directions were issued by the High Court to regularizethe drivers in service. In this backdrop, the employer/ZPapproached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’bleSupreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the employer,holding that merely because the worker had held the post ofdriver for a long period of time will not mean that he wasentitled to regularization of service when decision to availservices of a contractor was taken by the employer (ZP).Relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court whilerejecting the claim of the employee are as under:-16.Merely because Respondent 1 continued inservice for longer period on contractual basis theHigh Court ought not to have passed the order ofregularisation more particularly, when a policydecision was taken to avail the services of thedriver by the agency/contractor and that the WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt40appointment of Respondent 1 and other similarlysituated drivers was not made after any selectionprocedure. The appointment of Respondent 1was purely on stopgap and on contractual basis.The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to anddistinguished its earlier decision in the matter of PandurangSitaram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2020)17 SCC 393 and held that in the said case appeal preferred bythe employee was allowed since benefit of regularization wasgranted to similar employees working in the sameestablishment. Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court alsodealt with earlier decision in the matter of Sheo NarainNagar Vs. State of UP, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 wherebenefit of regularization in service was granted to the workerfrom the date on which temporary status was granted to him,on the ground that in the said case there was requirement ofwork of the employee and that a post was also available forgranting the benefit of regularization. Existence of post isconsidered to be a distinguishing factor. Based on thesereasons, the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the earlier WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt41two decisions and quashed the order passed by the HighCourt granting benefit of regularization in service to theworker although he had completed around 11 years ofservice on temporary basis.Union of India Vs. Ilmo Devi . 2021 (20) SCC 290 (ii)In the said case, the respondents-workers wereworking as part time Safai Karmacharis, at post office. Theworkers had approached the Central Administrative Tribunalseeking directions to frame policy for absorption/regularization in service with a further prayer to grant benefitof temporary status to the employees. The originalapplication was opposed on the ground that the workerswere rendering service for less than 5 hours in a day and thatthey were not rendering service against any sanctioned post.The claim of the workers for regularization in service wasrejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the employerto initiate the process of recruitment for appointment of SafaiKarmacharis on regular basis and issued a direction that theworkers (Safai Karmacharis) who had filed the originalapplication should be allowed to participate in the selection WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt42process. It was also directed that in case any decision is takenfor granting benefit of regularization in service as a onetimemeasure as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of Umadevi (supra), the case of the workers shouldalso be taken into consideration. Both sides approached theHigh Court challenging the said judgment. In the meantime,a fresh regularization scheme was framed by theemployer/Union of India. The High Court directed theemployer/Union of India to consider the claim ofregularization of workers as per the scheme framed. Theclaim of regularization by the workers was rejected on theground that there were no sanctioned posts and further thatthe workers had not put in 10 years of service as on10.04.2006 i.e. the date of judgment in the matter of UmaDevi (supra). The High Court directed the Union of India-employer to reformulate the policy and take decision tosanction the posts in a phasewise manner within a period of 6months. This order by the High Court was assailed before theHon’ble Supreme Court. In this backdrop, the Hon’bleSupreme Court has held that in absence of any sanctioned WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt43post, the High Court could not have issued directions forregularization of service. It is further held that High Courtcannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issuea direction to the Government for creation of posts orformulating a policy for regularization in a particular manner.It is further held that no employee can claim regularization inservice as a matter of right irrespective of policy forregularization. Relevant observations of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt while rejecting the claim of the employees are asunder:- “13…...As observed above, there are nosanctioned posts in the Post Office in which therespondents were working, therefore, thedirections issued by the High Court in theimpugned judgment and order are notpermissible in the judicial review under Article226 of the Constitution. The High Court cannot,in exercise of the power under Article 226, issue amandamus to direct the Department to sanctionand create the posts. The High Court, in exerciseof the powers under Article 226 of theConstitution, also cannot direct the Governmentand/or the Department to formulate a particular WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt44regularisation policy. Framing of any scheme is nofunction of the Court and is the sole prerogativeof the Government. Even the creation and/orsanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative ofthe Government and the High Court, in exerciseof the power under Article 226 of theConstitution, cannot issue mandamus and/ordirect to create and sanction the post.14.Even the regularisation policy to regularisethe services of the employees working ontemporary status and/or casual labourers is apolicy decision and in judicial review the Courtcannot issue mandamus and/or issue mandatorydirections to do so. In R.S. Bhonde, it is observedand held by this Court that the status ofpermanency cannot be granted when there is nopost.”Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. FCI, (2014) 7 SCC 190,(iii) In this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasreconciled the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the matter of UP Power Corporation Ltd., Vs. Bijli MazdoorSangh (2007) 5 SCC 755 and Maharashtra SRTC Vs. WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt45Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari, reported in (2009) 8SCC 556. In the case of UP Power Corporation Ltd., (supra).The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the light of judgmentin the matter of Uma Devi, (supra) Courts functioning underActs regulating labour laws could not grant relief ofregularization to a daily wager who was not appointed inservice after undergoing a proper selection procedure, since itwould lead in violation of right to equality. In the case ofMSRTC Vs. Casteribe (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasheld that the law laid down in Uma Devi, (supra) cannotdenude the labour Courts of their power to grant appropriaterelief of regularization in cases where unfair labour practicewas established. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after takinginto consideration both these judgments has laid down thattwo judgments are not contrary to each other. It is explainedthat Labour/Industrial Court can exercise jurisdiction to grantrelief of regularization to workers only where the employerhas indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling uppermanent posts and continuing workers on temporary basisor on daily wages against sanctioned posts. It is held that WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt46even if posts are available and case of unfair labour practiceis not made out, direction for regularization in service cannotbe issued by Labour/Industrial Court. It is also held thatdirection for regularization cannot be issued in the absence ofany post. A further rider is added that in case where benefitof regularization in service is granted to similarly situatedworkmen, the benefit of regularization will have to beextended to all similarly circumstanced workers. 24)As regards the decisions relied upon by thelearned Advocates for the workers including the judgment inthe matters of Dharamsingh (supra), Jaggo (supra), Shripal(supra) and WP No.5357 of 2021 (supra), which hold thatbenefit of regularization can be granted if the work isperennial in nature, the same appears to be in tune with thelaw laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter ofPCLU (supra). The correctness of PCLU is doubted by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC..Vs…KrisanGopal (supra) while making reference to a larger bench. 25)Judgments in the matters of Jaggo, Dharamsinghand Shripal, do not take into consideration earlier decisions WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt47in the matter of MSRTC Vs. Casteribe, CEO, ZP, Thane Vs.Santosh and Harinandan Prasad Vs. FCI, which hold thatrelief of regularization cannot be granted in the absence of asanctioned post and further that creation of post is beyondthe province of a Court of law. 26)The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in thematter of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reportedin (2017) 16 SCC 680 that when two judgments equal benchstrength are pressed into service and the ratio thereof cannotbe reconciled, the judgment which is prior in point of timewill be a good law and must be followed as a bindingprecedent.27)Whereas the judgments of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt which are relied upon by the NMC lay down that reliefof regularization cannot be granted to workers in the absenceof any sanctioned post, the decisions relied upon by thecomplainants indicate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court haslaid emphasis on nature of work to hold that if workers arecontinued as temporary employees for years togetherextracting work of perennial nature, the Courts will have the WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt48authority to grant relief of regularization even in the absenceof sanctioned post. Having regard to the judgment in thematter of ONGC Vs. Krishan Gopal (supra), which hasdoubted the correctness of the decision in the matter ofONGC Vs. PCLU (supra) and also having regard to thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PranaySethi (supra), which holds that if ratio of two judgmentscannot be reconciled, the judgment prior in point of timemust be followed as a binding precedent unless thesubsequent decision takes into consideration the earlierjudgment, I am of the considered opinion that the ratio laiddown in the matter of CEO, ZP Thane, Vs. Santosh (supra),Union of India Vs. Ilmo Devi (supra), Hari Nandan Prasad Vs.FCI (supra), MSRTC Vs. Casteribe (supra) needs to befollowed as against judgments in the matter of DharamsinghVs. State of UP (supra), Jaggoo Vs. UOI (supra) and ShripalVs. Nagar Nigam(supra). It will also be appropriate at thisstage to refer to paragraph 53 of the judgment ofConstitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case ofSecretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Umadevi (supra), wherein WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt49the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in no uncertain terms, heldthat regularization in service cannot be a mode ofrecruitment and that daily wagers or ad-hoc employees whoare initially appointed in public institutions dehors thestatutory and constitutional scheme of public employment donot have any right to the post on which they work and cannotclaim regularization in service on the strength of the lengthof service rendered with the employer as daily wagers or ontemporary basis. In paragraph 53 of the judgment theHon’ble Supreme Court has issued a clarification. Therelevant portion of paragraph 53 is extracted herein-belowfor ready reference. “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There maybe cases where irregular appointments (not illegalappointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa,R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan andreferred to in para 15 above, of duly qualifiedpersons in duly sanctioned vacant posts mighthave been made and the employees havecontinued to work for ten years or more butwithout the intervention of orders of the courts orof tribunals. The question of regularisation of the WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt50services of such employees may have to beconsidered on merits in the light of the principlessettled by this Court in the cases abovereferred toand in the light of this judgment. In that context,the Union of India, the State Governments andtheir instrumentalities should take steps toregularise as a one-time measure, the services ofsuch irregularly appointed, who have worked forten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but notunder cover of orders of the courts or of tribunalsand should further ensure that regularrecruitments are undertaken to fill those vacantsanctioned posts that require to be filled up, incases where temporary employees or daily wagersare being now employed. The process must be setin motion within six months from this date. Wealso clarify that regularisation, if any alreadymade, but not sub judice, need not be reopenedbased on this judgment, but there should be nofurther bypassing of the constitutionalrequirement and regularising or makingpermanent, those not duly appointed as per theconstitutional scheme.”28)Perusal of aforesaid portion will demonstrate thatdirections for regularization as a onetime measure is issuedonly in cases where persons have rendered service on ad-hoc WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt51basis against duly sanctioned vacant posts. Thus, Umadevialso permits regularization as a onetime measure only againstduly sanctioned posts. The direction for taking steps forregularization of services of irregularly appointed employeesis also issued in cases where such employees were employedagainst duly sanctioned vacant posts. Umadevi also does notdirect creation of posts for granting benefit of regularization.29) In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer tothe judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter ofMSRTC Vs. Casteribe, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556. Thesaid judgment lays down the ratio that Umadevi cannot beconsidered to be an authority to hold that Labour andIndustrial Courts constituted under the MRTU and PULP, Actcannot pass appropriate orders restraining the employer fromindulging in unfair labour practices by continuing employeesas badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them foryears together with object of depriving them of the benefit ofpermanency in service. In paragraph 36 of the judgment, it isheld that the Labour and Industrial Courts do have power togrant the benefit of permanency to workers in case unfair WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt52labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV is establishedand the post against which the worker is employed doesexist. In paragraph 37, the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasreiterated the settled legal position that Courts cannot directthe creation of posts. It has referred to and follow the lawlaid down in the judgment of Mahatma Phule AgriculturalUniversity Vs. Nashik Zilla Shet Kamgar Union, reported in2001 (7 ) SCC 346.30)The issue as regards applicability of MSO to localbodies is considered by the Division Bench in the matter ofMunicipal Council, Tirora and another Vs. Tulsidas BaliramBindhade, reported in 2016 (06) MhLJ 867. The saidjudgment is delivered in a reference in view of divergentviews of learned Single Judges in relation to applicability ofclause 4(C) of MSO and the right of regularization ofemployees who have completed 240 days of service in acalendar year in a Municipal Council, in the absence of anysanctioned post. The Division Bench observed that thecontroversy was covered by two earlier Division Benchjudgments in the matters of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt53Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale reported in 2006 (4) MhLJ 66and State of Maharashtra Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhavreported in 2008 (5) All MR 497. Referring to Section 76 ofthe Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats andIndustrial Townships Act,1965, it is held that the right tosanction posts under Section 76 is not vested with theMunicipal Council and likewise, the Municipal Council is alsonot the competent authority for making appointments ofemployees in view of Section 76(3) of the Act and, therefore,the workers who had completed more than 240 days inservice in a calendar year cannot fall back on clause 4(C) ofthe MSO in order to claim regularization in service. It is heldthat, in such cases, a worker cannot contend that theMunicipal Council had engaged in unfair labour practice. TheDivision Bench held that applicability of MSO was subject tothe appointment being made in accordance with the Section76 of the Act. 31)As regards judgment in the matter of PMC Vs.Dhanajay Gokhale (supra) the Division Bench has held thatmerely completion of 240 days service in a year will not be WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt54good enough for an employee working with the MunicipalCorporation to claim regularization as per clause 4(C) ofMSO. It is held that unless it is established that the servicewas rendered against a vacant post which is duly sanctionedby the competent authority, the employee will not have anyright of regularization. In the said case, the employees hadentered into an agreement with the employer-MunicipalCorporation that their claim for permanency would beavailable only upon completion of 5 years’ continuous serviceand that too subject to availability of vacancy againstpermanent post. 32)As regards judgment in the matter of State ofMaharashtra Vs. Pandurang Jadhav (supra), the appointmentof employees was made by the State Government ontemporary basis. There was no sanctioned post or vacancy inexistence against which the workers were employed. Theappointments were not made by following the prescribedprocedure. The Division Bench has held that since theworkers had failed to establish that their appointments weremade after following prescribed procedure, coupled with the WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt55fact that the appointment was not against any sanctionedvacant post, it was not possible to grant benefit ofregularization or permanency to the workers. It is held that insuch cases, clause 4(C) of MSO will not be applicable. 33)In the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs.V. K. Barde, reported in 2011 (4) MhLJ 875, the learnedSingle Judge has held that Industrial Tribunal does notpossess jurisdiction to order creation of post. It is further heldthat principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be madeapplicable in cases where daily-rated employees perform thesame work as regular employees. 34)In the matter of Ramesh Vitthal Patil Vs. KalyanDombivali Municipal Corporation, the petitioners/employeessought a declaration that they had assumed character ofpermanent employees by placing reliance on clause 4(C) ofMSO on the ground that they had put in more than 240 daysof service in a calendar year. The claim of the employees thatthey had attained status of permanent employees wasrejected by this Court, holding that a worker cannot claim theright of permanency under Clause 4(C) of MSO irrespective WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt56of the nature of appointment. It is held that the provisions ofMSO are made subject to provisions of any other law for thetime being in force and, therefore, unless an appointment ismade in accordance with the provisions of the MunicipalCorporation Act, the right of regularization or permanencycannot be claimed under Clause 4 (C) of MSO.35)The aforesaid five decisions of this Court in thematter of Municipal Council Tirora Vs. Tulsidas, PuneMunicipal Corporation Vs. Dhananjay, State of MaharashtraVs. Pandurang, Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs. B.K. Bardeand Ramesh Vitthal Patil Vs. Kalyan Dombivali MunicipalCorporation leave no doubt at all that right to claimregularization in service based on clause 4(C) of MSO cannotbe claimed unless the appointment is made against asanctioned post in accordance with the procedure prescribedunder the Corporations Act or Municipal Councils Act. 36)The judgment dated 08.11.2023 in Writ Petitionno.5357/2021 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction at Bombay) doesnot take into consideration the earlier Division Benchdecisions in the matter of PMC Vs. Dhananjay Gokhale and WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt57Municipal Council, Tirora Vs. Tulsidas. I am therefore unableto follow the law laid down in the said judgment in view ofthe aforesaid two Division Bench judgments. The saiddecision is also not in tune with other Single Benchjudgments in the matters of State of Maharashtra Vs.Pandurang and Ramesh Vitthal Patil Vs. Kalyan DombivaliMunicipal Corporation. 37)In view of the aforesaid authoritativepronouncements of Division Benches of this Court in relationto employees appointed against posts that are not sanctionedin Municipal Council as also Municipal Corporation, in theconsidered opinion of this Court, the judgment delivered bythe learned Industrial Court cannot be sustained. 38) The complainants have failed to make out anyright to claim regularization or permanency upon completionof 240 days service in a calendar year as per MSO 4(C) of theMSO, since their appointments were not against anysanctioned vacant post. 39)It must also be stated that the proposal forwardedby the NMC for creation of additional posts is accepted by the WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt58State Government and accordingly 4407 supernumeraryposts have been created. The complainants have beenaccommodated against the said posts by regularizing theirservices upon completion of 20 years of service. Based on thedecision by the State Government, the NMC has issuedappointment orders in favour of the complainants. It is,however, provided that the complainants(employees) will notbe entitled to the benefit of their previous service. In view ofthe said development which has taken place during thependency of the complaint, the controversy between theparties is narrowed down as to whether benefit ofregularization in service can be claimed by the workers uponcompletion of 240 days service as per MSO 4(C), or they willbe entitled to the benefit of regularization upon completionof 20 years of service as per Government Resolution issued bythe Government of Maharashtra and the consequentappointment orders issued in their favour by NMC. In theconsidered opinion of this Court, merits of a policy decisionfor regularization of services of daily wagers cannot beadjudicated by the Industrial Court. It needs to be mentioned WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt59that the complainants were not appointed by strictlyfollowing the prescribed procedure. Their appointments werealso not against sanctioned posts. Therefore, complainantscannot claim benefit of MSO 4(C). The policy decision togrant benefit of regularization on completion of 20 years is,therefore, not in violation of MSO 4(C). The learnedIndustrial Court has not even set aside the said GovernmentResolution. 40)In view of the above, the learned Industrial Courtwas not justified in directing the NMC to forward freshproposal to the State Government to grant the benefit ofpermanency in service to the comdplainants upon completionof 240 days of service and to grant all consequential benefitsupon proposal being accepted. The conclusion that NMC hadindulged in unfair labour practice is also not sustainable,since the complainants have failed to make out any right toregularization in service upon completion of 240 days ofservice in a calendar year. 41) In view of the above, in the considered opinion ofthis Court, the contention of the workers that they are WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt60entitled to regularization in service upon completion of 240days of service as per MSO 4(C), even in the absence ofsanctioned vacant posts, is liable to be rejected. 42) In that view of the matter, the petitions deserve tobe allowed and are accordingly allowed. The followingjudgments and orders passed by the learned Industrial Court,Nagpur are quashed and set aside and the said complaintsare dismissed.Sr.No. Date of impugnedjudgment Case No.i30.09.2024Complaint ULP No.413 of 2018, ii01.10.2024 Complaint ULPA No.421 of 2015iii30.09.2024 Complaint ULPA No.418 of 2015iv30.09.2024Complaint ULPA No.419 of 2015 v30.09.2024Complaint ULPA No.414 of 2015 vi30.09.2024Complaint ULPA No.417 of 2015 vii10.10.2024Complaint ULPA No.07 of 2016viii01.10.2024 Complaint ULPA No.423 of 2015ix01.10.2024Complaint ULPA No.422 of 2015 x30.09.2024Complaint ULPA No.416 of 2015 xi30.09.2024Complaint ULPA No.415 of 2015xii01.10.2024Complaint ULPA No.06 of 2016 WP NO.4967 OF 2023 + 13.odt6143)Writ Petition Nos.4967 of 2023 and 4968 of 2023are dismissed. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)Tanmay…