Bombay High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order Directing Regularization of Badli Workers, Rejects State’s Reliance on Umadevi (2006) and Reinforces Protection Against Unfair Labor Practices

Court’s Decision

The High Court upheld the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which directed the petitioners (state authorities) to regularize the services of the respondents (Badli workers). The court ruled that the Industrial Court’s decision from 29/07/2003, which recognized the respondents’ right to permanency, had attained finality and must be implemented. The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Umadevi (2006) prevented such regularization. It emphasized that Umadevi applied to backdoor appointments and not cases where labor courts had already adjudicated unfair labor practices.

Additionally, the court noted that other similarly placed employees had already been regularized based on the same Industrial Court ruling, making the differential treatment of the respondents arbitrary. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to comply with the Tribunal’s order.

Facts

The respondents had been working for several years in government hospitals as ward boys, Aayas, sweepers, and other Class-IV staff. Despite continued service and available vacancies, their employment remained temporary. Their case unfolded as follows:

1. 1996 – The respondents, through their trade union, filed Complaint (ULP) No. 248 of 1996 before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging unfair labor practices due to their non-regularization.
2. 2003 – The Industrial Court ruled in their favor, directing the petitioners to regularize the respondents based on seniority and suitability.
3. Despite the Industrial Court’s decision, their employment status remained unchanged.
4. 2020 – The respondents approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) through Original Application No. 756 of 2020, seeking implementation of the 2003 Industrial Court order.
5. 2022 – The Tribunal ruled in their favor and ordered their regularization.
6. 2025 – The petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s ruling in the High Court, arguing that regularization was not permissible under Umadevi (2006).

The High Court ruled against the petitioners, affirming the Tribunal’s order.

Issues

1. Did the Industrial Court’s 2003 ruling create an enforceable right to regularization for the respondents?
2. Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Umadevi (2006) prevent the regularization of the respondents?
3. Did the Tribunal err in directing the petitioners to implement the Industrial Court’s ruling despite the government’s 2015 resolution on regularization?
4. Did the continued engagement of the respondents as Badli workers amount to an unfair labor practice?

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, representing the state government, opposed regularization based on the following points:

1. Reliance on Umadevi (2006):
   • The petitioners argued that under Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others (2006) 4 SCC 1, temporary workers do not have a fundamental right to regularization.
   • They claimed that the respondents’ employment was not through a regular recruitment process.
   • The High Court, under Umadevi, should not direct regularization.
2. Non-fulfillment of Government Resolution Criteria:
   • The state’s resolution dated 07/12/2015 stipulated that only employees with 10 years of service as of 31/03/2007 were eligible for regularization.
   • The petitioners contended that some respondents did not meet this criterion.
3. Lack of Sanctioned Posts:
   • The petitioners asserted that there were not enough sanctioned posts to accommodate all respondents, citing Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (2021) 20 SCC 290.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents, through their legal counsel, countered the petitioners’ claims by arguing:

1. Finality of the Industrial Court’s Decision:
   • The Industrial Court’s ruling in ULP No. 248 of 1996 (29/07/2003) was never challenged and had thus attained finality.
   • The petitioners could not disregard an unchallenged judgment.
   • The Tribunal merely directed compliance with an existing judgment.
2. Umadevi (2006) Not Applicable:
   • The respondents distinguished their case from Umadevi, arguing that:
     • Umadevi dealt with illegal backdoor appointments, while their case involved unfair labor practices recognized by a judicial body.
     • The Supreme Court, in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556, ruled that Umadevi does not prevent labor courts from granting permanency to workers affected by unfair labor practices.
3. Discriminatory Treatment:
   • Other similarly placed workers at St. George Hospital had been regularized, violating the principle of equality.
   • The respondents should not be singled out for denial of rights.

Analysis of the Law

The High Court examined the legal principles in detail:

1. Umadevi (2006) and Its Scope:
   • The judgment sought to prevent backdoor appointments but did not override labor courts’ jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
   • The respondents had already secured a favorable ruling under labor laws before Umadevi was decided.
2. Impact of the Industrial Court’s Judgment:
   • The court reaffirmed that Industrial and Labor Courts have jurisdiction to grant permanency where unfair labor practices are proven.
3. Precedent Supporting Regularization:
   • Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009) upheld regularization where unfair labor practices were established.
   • Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 INSC 1034) reaffirmed that long-term employment creates an expectation of regularization.

Precedent Analysis

The High Court referred to several precedents supporting the respondents’ claims:

• Umadevi (2006): Established that courts should not order regularization of temporary workers unless they were appointed through a legal process.
• Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (2009): Clarified that labor courts still have the power to grant permanency where unfair labor practices exist.
• Jaggo v. Union of India (2024): Confirmed that Umadevi does not prevent regularization when employees have been continuously engaged in essential functions.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, reasoning that:

• The Industrial Court’s decision was legally binding and should have been implemented.
• The Tribunal correctly directed the petitioners to act on a pre-existing judicial decision.
• The petitioners’ reliance on Umadevi was misplaced, as it did not apply to cases of unfair labor practices.
• The petitioners’ argument that there were no sanctioned posts was invalid, as other similar workers had already been regularized.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Tribunal’s order. It directed the petitioners to:

• Immediately implement the Industrial Court’s decision from 2003.
• Regularize the respondents in proportion to available vacancies.
• Ensure compliance with labor laws to prevent continued unfair labor practices.

Implications

1. Clarification on Umadevi (2006): The judgment reaffirms that Umadevi does not override labor court decisions addressing unfair labor practices.
2. Reinforcement of Industrial Court Orders: Employers cannot ignore or delay implementing labor court rulings.
3. Stronger Precedent for Similar Workers: Other temporary workers with similar claims can use this ruling as precedent.
4. Impact on Government Employment Policies: State authorities may need to review their employment policies to ensure compliance with labor laws.

Also Read – Supreme Court Strikes Down Split Multiplier in Motor Accident Compensation, Restores Tribunal’s Award with Uniform Multiplier and Future Prospects