State Of Maharashtra vs Ambubai Shivaji Kamble

Sachin S. Deshmukh, J

These petitions, presented under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, raise an exception to the orders rendered by the Industrial Court in individual complaints. While the employees challenge these orders to the extent that they were denied the primary relief of regularisation although positive findings of fact. The State/employer has filed its own set of petitions to challenge the grant of even the limited relief directed by the Industrial Court namely, the forwarding of the employees' names for administrative approval against vacant posts.

Since all these writ petitions involve a common question of law and arise out of similar sets of facts and findings, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of adjudication, Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2025 (arising out of Complaint (ULP) No. 84 of 2018) as the lead petition.

The employees in these petitions were engaged by the State at Dr. Vaishampayan Memorial Government Medical College and Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Sarvopachar Rugnalay, Solapur- in Class IV positions. The lead Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker on 16 August 2010. The record reflects that approximately 120 similarly situated employees were engaged in a similar fashion. Having rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for over a decade, these employees were kept on daily wages, were below the statutory minimum, and were denied the benefits of permanency.

It is a matter of record that within the Respondent's establishment, there exist 383 sanctioned posts for the Class IV category. It is the specific case of the employees that over 100 of these posts have remained vacant for years. Although the availability of sanctioned vacancies and a Government Resolution dated 17 May 2019 directing the recruitment of 100% of these posts, the State chose to continue the employees on daily-wage basis.

Aggrieved by this continued uncertainty, the employees approached the Industrial Court, Solapur, invoking Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred as 'the said Act'). Employees alleged that the State had engaged in an unfair labour practice while continuing them on a temporary basis for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees.

The State resisted these complaints, primarily on the ground that the appointments were purely on daily-wage engagements based on oral instructions and did not follow regular recruitment procedures. However, the State did not successfully displace the evidence regarding the longevity of service or the existence of sanctioned vacant posts.

Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Industrial Court rendered the orders under challenge (in the lead case, on 19 December 2024). The Court recorded a finding of fact that the employees had completed continuous service for more than decade and that sanctioned vacant posts were available. However, instead of granting the substantive relief of regularisation, the Court directed the Employer to forward proposals for 'approval' to the State Government, a direction which the employees contend is to leave the employees at the mercy of the State Government and contrary to the legitimate entitlement of employees and which the State challenges even in its limited form.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-employees, while supporting the factual findings of the Industrial Court, submits that the Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction to grant the consequential relief of regularisation. It is argued that once the positive finding was recorded regarding the employees' entitlement based on long and continuous service (exceeding 240 days in each calendar year), the Industrial Court was not justified in restricting the relief to a mere direction to forward proposals for approval.

It is further submitted that the existence of sanctioned vacant posts is admitted by the Respondents themselves during the proceedings while issuing an advertisement for recruitment of inasmuch as 153 posts. Consequently, the Petitioner contends that any further administrative process or 'approval' is entirely redundant and serves only to delay the inevitable grant of permanency. The Petitioner asserts that the availability of these sanctioned vacancies, coupled with the clear mandate of the Government Resolution dated 17 May 2019 to fill 100% of vacant Class IV posts, establishes legitimate right in favor of the employees which cannot be deferred and in any event defeated by administrative laxities.

The Petitioner argues that continuing the employees on a daily-wage basis for over a decade, while denying them the statutory benefits and job security associated with permanent employment, constitutes a unfair labour practice under Items 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Reliance is placed on settled legal principles to contend that such prolonged temporary engagement of workers against perennial needs is an exploitation of labour that warrants immediate judicial intervention.

Finally, the Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of these proceedings, and despite the Industrial Court's findings, the Respondents issued a fresh recruitment advertisement for the very posts currently occupied by these employees. It is submitted the action is not only contrary to the judicial findings but is an attempt to displace the Petitioner and render the entire adjudication redundant. In light of these submissions, the Petitioner prays that the impugned orders deserve to be modified conferring direct and effective regularisation from the date of entitlement.

In process, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-employees have relied upon the following judgments:

Jaggo Vs. Union of India 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, Dharam Singh and Ors Vs. State of UP 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 and Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand 2026 INSC 99.

Per Contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State and its authorities (the Petitioners in the cross-petitions) vehemently opposes the claim for regularisation and challenges the very legality of the Industrial Court's findings. It is primarily contended that the employees were engaged purely on a temporary, daily-wage basis without adhering to the constitutional scheme of public employment. The State submits that these appointments were made through oral instructions without advertisement or selection process, and consequently, such 'back-door entries' do not confer any legal right upon the employees to seek permanency or regularisation.

It is further submitted that the Industrial Court committed a grave error while concluding mere completion of 240 days of service ipso facto entitles an employee to permanency. It is further contended that regularisation is not an axiomatic consequence of long service, especially when the initial entry was not in conformity with the recruitment rules. The State challenges the finding of 'unfair labour practice' under Items 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act, asserting that such a finding is perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record, as no promise of permanency was ever extended to these daily-wage workers.

Regarding the directions issued by the Industrial Court, the State contends that regularisation is a matter of policy and administrative discretion. It is submitted that the Court cannot bypass the mandatory requirement of obtaining previous approval from the competent Government bodies. The State maintains that the direction to forward a proposal for 'approval' is a necessary procedural safeguard to ensure compliance with financial and administrative norms, and the Industrial Court could not have directed the State to regularise services in absence of due process.

Lastly, the State justifies its action of issuing a fresh recruitment advertisement, contending that it is duty-bound to fill sanctioned vacant posts through a competitive and merit-based process. It is submitted that seeking to fill these vacancies through advertisement is in line with the principles of equality in public employment, and the employees are free to participate in such a process alongside other eligible candidates. The State, therefore, prays for the quashing of the impugned orders and the dismissal of the employees' claims in their entirety.

In support of the submissions, learned AGP relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the following issues arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Industrial Court, after recording a categorical finding of fact that the employees had rendered long and continuous service against available sanctioned vacant posts, was justified in restricting the relief to a direction to 'forward a proposal for approval' instead of granting regularisation?

(ii) Whether the State can be permitted to defeat the claims of the employees, who have been found to be victims of unfair labour practices, by initiating a fresh recruitment process for the same posts during the pendency of these proceedings?

(iii) Whether the findings of the Industrial Court regarding the existence of unfair labour practices and the entitlement of the employees to benefits of permanency suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference under the writ jurisdiction?

At the outset, it is necessary to examine the findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Court. Perusal of the impugned orders reveals a consistent finding in all matters that the employees have rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service for a period exceeding 15 years, and there exist clear vacancies against sanctioned posts within the establishment of the Respondent-Medical College. These findings are based on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced and admitted by litigating sides.

The existence of 383 sanctioned posts, with at least 145 posts lying vacant, is a matter of record and is admitted. Once these foundational facts are established namely, the perennial nature of the work, the availability of sanctioned vacancies, and the length of service rendered for more than decade, the 'unfair labour practice' on the part of the State in continuing these employees on a daily-wage basis is completely unjust.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhola Nath (supra) underscored the constitutional imperative of the State's action or lack thereof, in failing to recognise the continuous service of employees for regularisation. Such inaction was found to be inherently arbitrary and violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court reaffirmed that the State, as a "model employer," is saddled with a heightened obligation to act with probity, fairness, and candour. It bears a social responsibility to preserve the dignity of its workforce and is strictly prohibited from exploiting the vulnerability, helplessness, or unequal bargaining position of its employees.

The Apex Court further examined the engagement of the employees on the anvil of fundamental rights and the doctrine of waiver. Although the initial appointments were temporary and governed by annual extensions, the fact remains that these extensions persisted for over 15 years. The Apex Court observed that such a prolonged period of temporary service creates a legitimate expectation of permanence. Consequently, the State's refusal to grant regularisation was regarded as an arbitrary exercise of power warranting judicial interference. The Apex Court reiterated that Article 14 casts a non-negotiable obligation upon the State to treat all persons equally, and these fundamental rights, by their very nature, are incapable of being waived by the individual.

Furthermore, the Court held that where State action is in violation of Article 14, the mere fact that an engagement is governed by contractual terms cannot be construed as a waiver of fundamental rights. The "contractual" label does not provide a shield for the State to bypass constitutional protections. By addressing the limits on perpetual contractual engagements, the Apex Court effectively endorsed the entitlement of employees who have dedicated more than a decade of service to the State, holding that the State cannot indefinitely keep employees in a state of precariousness.

Once the fact of continuous service and available vacancies is established, the conduct of the State must be tested against the standards expected of a Model Employer. The State is not a private employer driven by profit motives; it is a Welfare State bound by the constitutional mandate of fairness, probity, and social responsibility under Article 14 of the Constitution. As a Model Employer, it is under an obligation to ensure that its employment practices are free from arbitrariness and exploitation.

In the present case, the State's action in keeping Class-IV employees, who perform essential services in a medical hospital, on a precarious daily-wage basis for over 15 years is a clear departure from these constitutional obligations. It is unconscionable for the State to weaponize its domineering position to take advantage of the helplessness and weak bargaining power of its workers. Such a 'culture of adhocism,' where employees are kept in a state of perpetual uncertainty despite the perennial nature of their work, cannot be countenanced in a society governed by the Rule of Law.

The obligation of a Model Employer is to maintain and uphold the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation. Where employees have been permitted to discharge their duties against sanctioned posts for a considerable and substantial length of time; in this case, more than a decade and a half, it is obvious that a legitimate expectation of claim for permanency would spring into action. By consistently granting extensions and retaining their services year after year, the State effectively prevented these individuals from seeking alternative livelihoods, reposing a confidence that their dedication would receive formal recognition.

At this juncture, it is worthwhile to take note of Class-IV employees who are backbone of hospital operations. Without their dedication, functioning of the hospital would be paralyzed since it is hygiene which will suffer, patients' care also will be reduced and the medical staff in the process would be over burdened. Therefore, recognizing and respecting their duties and role is essential for proper functioning of the healthcare system. As such, it is indispensable one. Though, these employees work behind scene, their contribution facilitates patients' safety, hospital efficiency and overall healthcare services.

Confronted with the same, learned AGP has fairly accepted the indispensable role of these employees. As such, the exploitative approach adopted by the State has to be regarded as arbitrary and violative of constitutional mandate and keeping them for decades on temporary basis is certainly questionable act and does not suit the welfare State as a model employer and which cannot be driven by profits and culture of adhocism.

Furthermore, there are, legal vis-a-vis moral limits to perpetual contractual engagement. The State cannot be permitted to continue adhocism indefinitely, as doing so has the direct effect of impairing the dignity and legitimate entitlements of the employees. It must be recognized that these employees are not mere 'ancillary' help; they are essential components of the medical college's machinery. The apathy displayed by the State in ignoring their 15 years of service is not only unpalatable but stands in direct contravention of the obligation of a Welfare State.

Such insensitive approach of the State is further evidenced by the issuance of a fresh recruitment advertisement in October 2025 for 153 Class-IV posts. It is startling that while this Court is seized with the issue of these employees' entitlements, claims already upheld by the Industrial Court, the State has chosen to precipitate the matter attempting to fill these very posts through an external process. It is aimed at defeating the adjudicated rights of long-serving employees and rendering the judicial decisions redundant is highly improper. Instead of bolstering the claims of those who have dedicated over 15 years to the institution, the State has acted with a sense of impunity that this Court finds necessary to deprecate this approach of State in the strongest terms.

Furthermore, the State's reliance on the communication dated 10 April 2026 to deny regularisation is entirely misplaced. In this communication, the Under Secretary sought to justify the denial by citing a lack of sanctioned posts and invoking the restrictive principles in the case of Umadevi (Supra). However, such a stand is factually and legally unsustainable, in the dint of verdict of Apex Court in case of Bholanath (Supra).

Recently cautioned by the Apex Court in Shripad (Supra) and Vinod Kumar (Supra), the decision in Umadevi cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate the exploitative engagement of temporary employees for decades. Where the State has failed to undertake regular recruitment for decades while continuing to utilize and exploit the services of the same individuals against perennial needs, it cannot now be permitted to take shelter under the guise of procedural irregularities to defeat their legitimate claims, unless illegality is demonstrated.

The findings rendered by the Industrial Court regarding long service and the existence of sanctioned posts are based on evidence and do not suffer from any perversity. On the contrary, once the Industrial Court found that the employees were victims of unfair labour practices, it ought to have granted the relief ensuring affirmative action directing regularisation. The approach of granting a conditional direction to 'forward names for approval' will relegate the employees at the mercy of the State.

In view of the detailed analysis and findings recorded above, my answers to the issues framed are as follows:

(i) The Industrial Court was not justified in restricting relief to a mere proposal. Once the facts of long service and vacant posts were established, the Court was duty-bound to grant the substantive relief of regularisation to prevent the continued exploitation of the employees.

(ii) The State, as a Model Employer, is prohibited from weaponizing its recruitment powers to displace employees whose rights to permanency have already been judicially recognized.

(iii) The factual findings of the Industrial Court regarding the existence of unfair labour practices are legally sound and based on evidence. However, the limited relief granted by the Industrial Court was an error of law that warrants interference and modification by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid findings, communication dated 10/04/2026 issued by the State is unsustainable in law and shall not be acted upon.

Consequently, the Writ Petitions preferred by the employees deserve to be allowed, while the Writ Petitions filed by the State/Employer deserve to be dismissed.

Hence, the following order

O R D E R

(i) The Writ Petitions presented by the employees as indicated in the cause title are Allowed.

(ii) The Writ Petitions presented by the State/Employer as indicated in the cause title are Dismissed.

(iii) The impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court are modified and it is hereby directed that the said employees shall be regularised in service against available vacant sanctioned posts with all consequential benefits.

iv) The State/Employer shall implement these directions within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this judgment.

(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.