Budgets Cannot Be Balanced on the Backs of Those Who Keep the Water Flowing: Bombay High Court Orders Regularisation of 48 Daily-Wage Pump Operators After Two Decades of Precarious Employment

“Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline.” —  In a watershed ruling Bombay High Court refused to allow the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to continue exploiting pump operators under the garb of contractual arrangements and financial constraints. Upholding a 2006 Industrial Court decision, Justice Milind N. Jadhav declared the Corporation’s failure to regularise essential workers as an unfair labour practice and directed the immediate reinstatement and regularisation of 48 surviving pump operators who had worked uninterrupted for decades.

In a momentous declaration, the Court warned that “The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.”

The ruling, delivered in Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2006 filed by Navi Mumbai Mahanagar Palika vs. Navi Mumbai Municipal Union, has become a powerful addition to the growing constitutional jurisprudence on the rights of ad hoc and daily-wage employees in public employment.

“The State Is Not a Mere Market Participant — It Is a Constitutional Employer”: Court Rejects Plea of No Sanctioned Posts

The Corporation argued that it could not regularise workers as the State Government had not sanctioned posts. The Court rejected this argument as a “convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness”, holding that Section 51 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 places a legal duty upon the Corporation to recommend creation of posts when required.

Justice Jadhav ruled: “Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices.”

The Court castigated the Corporation’s failure to create posts or make any meaningful representation to the State despite relying on the same workforce for essential services like water supply since 1999.

“Outsourcing Cannot Become a Shield to Sidestep Fair Employment”: Court Declares Illegal Shift to Contractors Without Notice

The Corporation had initially regularised 75 out of 116 pump operators by issuing short-term appointment letters every 2-3 months starting January 2003. However, by September 2003, it reverted to outsourcing the same work to contractors—without issuing any notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court found this shift unlawful, stating: “By cancelling the direct payment system and introducing the contractor, both the wages and the mode of payment were altered to the disadvantage of the workmen. A notice of change under Section 9A was a must.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Workmen of Food Corporation of India v. FCI, the Court affirmed that any unilateral alteration in wages or conditions without due notice was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice.

“These Men Kept the City’s Water Supply Running—Their Dignity Is Non-Negotiable”: Regularisation Ordered With Full Benefits and Back Wages

The Court painstakingly examined records showing that all 48 workmen had worked for over 240 days per year for several years, their attendance was marked by the Corporation, their work supervised by municipal engineers, and no valid termination orders were ever issued. The Court held that their real employer was the Corporation itself, not the intermediary contractors.

The Court further invoked Clause 4(C) of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959, which mandates that temporary employees who complete 240 days of uninterrupted service must be made permanent.

In words that resonate with judicial empathy and constitutional clarity, the Court declared:

“Public institutions cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.”

The Corporation was directed to reinstate the 48 surviving pump operators within one week, issue them letters of permanency, and grant back wages, parity in benefits, and full continuity of service.

“Umadevi Cannot Be a Sword Against Justice—It Must Not Justify Exploitation”: Court Aligns with 2025 Supreme Court Ruling in Dharam Singh

The Corporation attempted to rely on the 2006 decision in Umadevi to argue that no permanency could be granted. The Court rebuked the misapplication of that precedent, instead aligning with the Supreme Court’s latest jurisprudence in Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025), which distinguishes between “illegal” appointments and “irregular” ones in essential services.

Quoting extensively from Dharam Singh, the Court noted: “Where the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order, workers cannot be left in a limbo under the excuse of Umadevi. Outsourcing or daily-wage engagements for perennial tasks is not only immoral—it is unconstitutional.”

The Court embraced the principle that ad hocism in public employment is not merely a managerial error but a violation of constitutional discipline under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

“The Promise of Equal Protection Must Not Be Deferred by Administrative Drift”: Court Grants Four Weeks’ Stay, But Not Without Reprimand

Though the Court granted a four-week stay of the order to allow the Corporation to file an appeal, it issued a sharp warning:

“Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but demands clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. Delay is not mere negligence, but a conscious method of denial.”

Justice Jadhav concluded with a direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s reminder that “fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations.”

A Wake-Up Call for Public Employers Exploiting “Temporary” Labour

This judgment marks a critical assertion of constitutional rights in the realm of precarious public employment. It resoundingly affirms that workers performing essential, permanent functions cannot be kept in a cycle of insecure engagement, no matter how many years bureaucracies delay post creation.

As Justice Jadhav declared: “The time for ‘rolling reconsiderations’ is over. These workmen have waited long enough.”

Date of Decision: September 10, 2025