- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Maharashtra And Another v. R.S Bhonde And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents, employed on a daily-wage basis at the College of Agriculture, Nagpur (part of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth), filed complaints under Section 28 read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging an unfair labour practice: they were made to perform permanent work while being retained as temporary/seasonal workers.
The Industrial Court found the University guilty of unfair labour practice and directed that the workers be made permanent, “subject to the approval of the State Government” as required by Section 50(B) of the Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth Act, 1968.
The University challenged that order. A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, on 25-7-1983 modified the Industrial Court’s direction by substituting the words “subject to the prior approval of the State Government.” That judgment attained finality.
After Section 50(B) was repealed by the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Act, 1983 (effective 7-11-1983), ten workers (present respondents) filed another writ petition seeking implementation of the Industrial Court’s order without the approval requirement. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed their petition, holding that, post-repeal, no State approval was needed and directing the workers’ permanency with full benefits from 7-11-1983.
The State of Maharashtra and the University appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the Division Bench’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the repeal of Section 50(B) of the 1968 University Act, the University still required State Government approval to confer permanent status on daily-wage employees.
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court could disregard the Single Judge’s earlier order—already final—that permanency was “subject to prior approval of the State Government.”
- Whether courts can direct conferment of permanent status when no sanctioned posts exist within the University’s establishment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (State of Maharashtra & University)
- The Single Judge’s order dated 25-7-1983 had attained finality; therefore, a subsequent writ petition seeking enforcement of the Industrial Court’s original order was not maintainable.
- The repeal of Section 50(B) did not retroactively nullify the requirement of prior State approval embedded in the final High Court order.
- Permanency cannot be granted when there are no sanctioned posts, as recognised by this Court in prior judgments.
Respondent Employees
- The University had consistently represented that it possessed a scheme for regularisation; hence, State approval should not be an impediment.
- With Section 50(B) repealed, any statutory hurdle to regularisation had vanished, entitling them to permanency from 7-11-1983.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (2001) 7 SCC 346 | Permanency cannot be conferred in the absence of a sanctioned post. | Relied upon to hold that permanent status cannot be granted when no posts exist in the University’s cadre. |
| Gram Sevak Prashikshan Kendra v. Workmen (citation not provided in opinion) | Mere yearly continuation of seasonal work does not give rise to permanent status unless sanctioned posts and proper regularisation exist. | Used to reinforce that continuity of seasonal work alone is insufficient for automatic permanency. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court identified two independent flaws in the High Court’s judgment:
- Finality of the 25-7-1983 Order: The earlier Single Judge’s decision modifying the Industrial Court’s order had never been challenged; thus, the requirement of “prior approval of the State Government” was binding. A subsequent writ petition could not resurrect the original Industrial Court directive once it had been judicially altered.
- Absence of Sanctioned Posts: Affidavits showed that the University engaged over 3000 daily-wage workers and filled vacancies only when sanctioned posts became available, following zone-wise seniority. Because permanency presupposes an available post, the High Court’s blanket direction contravened the principles affirmed in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and Gram Sevak Prashikshan Kendra.
The Court also clarified that repeal of Section 50(B) did not nullify the operative part of the prior High Court order, which had become final before repeal and continued to govern the parties’ rights.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The appeal is allowed; the Division Bench judgment is set aside.
Consequences: Except for Respondent 8 (who had died), the remaining respondents had been regularised at various points. Their regularisation will take effect only from the specific dates on which the competent authority passed orders, not from 7-11-1983. The decision reinforces two principles: (1) final judicial orders cannot be collaterally attacked in subsequent proceedings, and (2) courts will not confer permanent status when no sanctioned posts exist. No new precedent was set, but existing jurisprudence on regularisation was reaffirmed.
Arijit Pasayat, J.— The State of Maharashtra and the Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. By the impugned judgment the High Court directed that there was no necessity for obtaining approval of the State Government for the purpose of treating the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the employees”) as the permanent employees w.e.f 7-11-1983 and that they are entitled to all benefits from that date as permanent employees.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The respondents and several others, who according to the appellants were engaged on seasonal basis, approached the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur by filing a complaint purportedly under Section 28 read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The case of the complainants was that they were continuously working with the present Appellant 2 University in the College of Agriculture, Nagpur without any break in service as daily wagers. The nature of duties performed by them is of permanent nature. Even though they were being continued as temporary employees, they attended work of permanent nature. According to them this practice was being followed to deprive them from getting benefits to which a permanent workman was entitled and this amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. Prayer was made to restrain the University and the College from continuing with the unfair labour practice complained of and to make the complainants permanent in the post they were working. Stand of the University and the College was that by itself it cannot create permanent posts as the State Government has to be approached for this purpose. It was pointed out that the State Government was approached for making 140 labourers permanent. The Industrial Court held that there was unfair labour practice and directed the respondents i.e the University and the College to make the complainants permanent subject to the approval of the State Government. Stand taken by the University was with reference to Section 50(B) of the Punjabrao Krishi University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1968 (in short “the University Act”). Six writ petitions were filed by the University questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by the Industrial Court. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 143 of 1983 along with Writ Petitions Nos. 170 of 1983, 1171-74 of 1982 held that the order passed in the complaint cases was to be modified to the extent that for the words “subject to the approval of the State Government” in each of the case the words “subject to the prior approval of the State Government” were to be substituted.
3. Thereafter, ten persons who are respondents herein filed a writ petition before the High Court to implement the order of the Industrial Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the Industrial Court's order was to be modified by excluding the words “subject to the approval of the State Government”. Accordingly, it directed that all the respondents were to be treated as permanent employees with all benefits w.e.f 7-11-1983 i.e the day on which Section 50(B) of the University Act was repealed by the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 in (short “the 1983 Act”). According to the High Court there was no provision similar to Section 50(B) of the Act in 1983 Act and, therefore, the question of any approval much less prior approval of the State Government did not arise.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order dated 25-7-1983 by which Writ Petition No. 143 of 1983 and other cases were disposed had attained finality. Merely because the provision which was in operation when the order of the Industrial Court was passed had subsequently been repealed, same was really of no consequence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the direction of the High Court is in order keeping in view the fact that the University at all points of time had taken the stand that it had a scheme for regularisation.
6. It is to be noted that the University as revealed from the affidavits filed before the High Court, had stated that more than 3000 workers were engaged from time to time on daily-wage basis, besides 970 workers working on regular basis. Whenever a post fell vacant or was newly created with the approval of the competent authority and following due procedure the vacancies were filled up from amongst those who were on daily wages according to their zonewise seniority list separately maintained for Nagpur and Amaravati zones. This position is not disputed by the respondents. That being so, the order of the High Court is clearly untenable on more than one count. Firstly, the order in Writ Petition No. 143 of 1983 and other connected cases dated 25-7-1983 had become final and there was no challenge to it. Prayer in the subsequent writ petition to enforce Industrial Court's order is clearly not maintainable. Merely because Section 50(B) of the Act was repealed that did not take away the effect of the order passed by the High Court in the earlier cases. The prayer for enforcement of the Industrial Court's order in its original form could not have been made, when the same had been modified by the High Court's order which had attained finality.
7. Additionally, as observed by this Court in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (2001) 7 SCC 346 the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no post. Again in Gram Sevak Prashikshan Kendra v. Workmen, it was held that mere continuance every year of seasonal work obviously during the period when the work was available does not constitute a permanent status unless there exists post and regularisation is done.
8. Above being the position the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. It is, however, not in dispute that except Respondent 8 who has died in the meantime the others have been at points of time regularised. The regularisation shall take effect from the respective dates of order in that regard as passed by the authority and not from 7-11-1983 as directed by the High Court.
9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
Alert