Can Industrial Courts Grant Blanket Permanency Of Service ? Bombay High Court Answers
The Bench noted that omission to pray for permanency is no bar to affirmative action, but only irregularly appointed temporary workers with 10 years’ service against vacant posts qualify; the Court confined Mumbai University Relief to eligible employees.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that even in the exercise of its powers under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), an Industrial or Labour Court cannot straightaway direct regularisation contrary to the constitutional scheme. Regularisation is permissible only where similarly placed workmen have been regularised by the employer itself under some scheme.
Examining the statutory framework, the Court acknowledged that an Industrial Court holds wide powers under Section 30 to grant permanency as an affirmative action once an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established. However, it struck down blanket permanency in this case because the charge under Item 6 was not legally made out, and because the constitutional mandates set down in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 strictly limit regularisation in public employment where recruitment bypassed open selection or where permanent posts were non-existent.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “…even in relation to an industrial adjudication, now regularization is permissible only if similarly placed workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme. Otherwise, even in exercise of powers under Section 30 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, the Industrial or Labour Court cannot straightaway direct regularization contrary to the constitutional scheme”.
Senior Advocate J.P. Cama appeared for the petitioners and Advocate S.C. Naidu appeared for the respondent.
“…the judgment in Umadevi does not denude the Industrial Court and Labour Court of their statutory powers under Section 30 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act to order permanency to workers, who have been victims of unfair labour practices under Item 6 of the Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, where posts on which they have been working exist. It is further held that Umadevi (supra) does not override the power of Labour Court and Industrial Court in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act once the unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act is established. At the same time, the Apex Court has held that Courts cannot direct creation of posts and that creation of posts is not within the domain of judicial functions and that therefore, status of permanency cannot be granted by Courts where no posts exist”, it noted further.
The 108 non-teaching staff were engaged on temporary terms between 2004 and 2020 without advertisement or a regular selection process. Their last appointment order ran until August 30, 2022, and the University issued no fresh orders after that date.
They filed a complaint, and the Industrial Court granted ad-interim relief on August 29, 2022, and directed payment of wages by interim order dated November 16, 2022. On April 20, 2023, it directed monthly deposit of wages. The Court, recorded an undertaking to deposit Rs. 2,04,58,832.
On September 15, 2025, the Industrial Court found unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV and directed permanency from July 1, 2022. On June 24, 2026, it apportioned deposited funds of Rs. 4,60,80,243. The University challenged both orders.
On the pleadings, the Court held that Section 30(1)(b) is both negative and positive in nature. Placing reliance on MSRTC v. Casteribe, it held that permanency may follow where Item 6 is established. It also read the complaint substantively and noted that the University had understood permanency to be in issue.
However, it held that Item 6 was not made out. The Universities Act permits temporary posts funded from the University’s own resources, and no object to deprive workers of permanent status was shown. The initial engagements were irregular, and no vacant posts were proved at the time of engagement.
Applying Umadevi and Hari Nandan Prasad, the Court held that only the 29 respondents with 10 years’ service could be regularised. Over 1,000 other temporary employees were seeking regularisation against about 398 vacancies. It also held that service under interim orders cannot count toward the 10 years.
The Court directed reinstatement of the eligible respondents within six weeks. They may withdraw deposited wages up to September 2025, with wages from October 2025 to be paid within three months. Differences between consolidated and regular pay from July 1, 2022 until regularisation are payable within three months. The other respondents may withdraw only the pay difference for July 1, 2022 to August 30, 2022. They are also entitled to compensation at 15 days’ wages per completed year of service. The order of June 24, 2026 was set aside, and the State Government was held liable to bear the salary burden of those regularised.
Cause Title: University of Mumbai & Anr. v. Sunil Tanga Pagare & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:22827)
Appearances:
Petitioner: J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate, Suraj Kaushik, Rajat Dedhia, Advocates.
Respondent: S.C. Naidu, Manoj Gujar, T.R. Yadav, Divya Yajurvedi and Pradeep Kumar i/b M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co., Advocates.