Constitutional Employer Cannot Balance Budgets on Backs of Daily Wagers — Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement and Permanency of Firemen and Drivers After 9 Years of Uninterrupted Service

“To ignore their humanity is to make justice blind to lived realities”— Bombay High Court, in a landmark decision authored by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, allowed a batch of four writ petitions filed by long-serving daily wage employees of the Malegaon Municipal Corporation, challenging the dismissal of their unfair labour practice (ULP) complaints and their subsequent termination from employment during the pendency of their petitions.

The Court declared the Corporation's conduct arbitrary, high-handed and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, and directed immediate reinstatement, continuity of service, backwages from 2 July 2025, and benefits of permanency to the petitioners—two drivers and two firemen—who had been serving continuously since 2016–2017.

Calling out the “systemic exploitation” of temporary workers in essential services, the Court held: “Respondent Corporation is a public institution and when it depends day after day on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity.”

“Continuous Engagement in Essential Roles Cannot Be Dismissed as Ad-Hoc”—Court Rejects Corporation’s Claim of Financial Helplessness

The petitioners, Pradip Ramesh Shinde, Bhushan Suresh Thakre, Sunil Ananda Bagul, and Sheikh Javid Sheikh Rashid, were employed as drivers and firemen on six-month contracts by the Malegaon Corporation starting in 2016–17. Over the next nine years, their contracts were renewed intermittently without any real break in service.

They filed complaints under Section 28 read with Items 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, seeking permanency and regularisation of service.

Though the Industrial Court initially granted ad-interim protection, it eventually dismissed the complaints citing the Corporation’s administrative constraint—namely that establishment expenses exceeded the 35% ceiling as per a Government Resolution dated 14 January 2016.

However, the Bombay High Court decisively rejected this reasoning, observing: “If the same stand continues forever, Petitioners’ services will be employed on temporary basis at all times. Such a regime amounts to perpetuating bonded labour under the garb of financial restraint.”

“Precarious Employment Cannot Be Justified by Umadevi”—Court Cites Dharam Singh, Jaggo, and Shripal Rulings

The Court relied extensively on recent rulings by the Supreme Court, including the seminal Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC) and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), to emphasise that long-term engagement in essential and perennial duties cannot be masked as temporary or contractual merely due to absence of formal sanctioning.

It quoted with approval from Dharam Singh: “Unlike Umadevi, the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce.”

Justice Jadhav further observed that invoking Umadevi to deny statutory rights under labour laws is a misapplication: “To read the judgment in Umadevi in a manner so as to deprive the workmen of their statutory rights would do violence to the language of the judgment. The powers of the Labour and Industrial Courts under MRTU & PULP Act have not been abrogated.”

“Financial Stringency Is No Talisman Against Fairness”—Corporation’s Excuse of 49.2% Expenditure Rejected

The Corporation had argued that since its establishment expenses had reached 49.2% of its revenue, it was barred from regularising workers under the 2016 staffing policy. But the Court saw through this defence, terming it a facade to perpetuate exploitation:

“With the passage of time, the financial ceiling in the GR cannot be used as a yardstick to deny the fundamental right to fair treatment and dignity at work, especially when identical roles are already exempted for categories like Safai Kamgars.”

The Court noted the inconsistency in the Corporation’s approach, wherein some workers were absorbed despite the 35% ceiling, while firemen and drivers were arbitrarily excluded.

“Lack of Sanctioned Posts Is Not a Legal Defence to Perennial Exploitation”—Court Holds Continued Employment Without Benefits Unconstitutional

Justice Jadhav, relying on precedent including MSRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556, held that continued use of daily wagers without regularisation amounts to unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act.

The Court remarked: “Once it is seen that services have been rendered uninterruptedly for nine years and the nature of work is essential and regular, denial of permanency is nothing but deprivation of dignity, security and fair employment.”

It noted that:

• Petitioners completed over 240 days of work for several consecutive years

• Their employment was never rebutted by evidence from the Corporation

• Their duties were identical to those of permanent workers

• Their termination during pendency of writ petitions was in violation of natural justice

“State Cannot Be a Spectator to Ad-Hocism”—Exploitation by Labels of ‘Temporary’ Is Constitutionally Unacceptable

Quoting from the Supreme Court’s Jaggo ruling, the High Court criticised the use of outsourcing and temporary labels to mask regular employment:

“Employees engaged for essential, recurring, and integral roles are often labelled as ‘temporary’ or ‘contractual,’ even when their work mirrors that of regular employees. This misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security and benefits that they are entitled to.”

The Court condemned such administrative conduct as “eroding public trust” and “corroding confidence in governance”.

Termination Quashed, Reinstatement Ordered, Permanency Granted

Justice Jadhav concluded with clear and decisive reliefs: “Impugned orders dated 06.05.2025 are quashed and set aside. Termination orders dated 02.07.2025 are also set aside. All four Petitioners shall be reinstated within one week with continuity in service, backwages from 02.07.2025, and all benefits of permanency from the date of this judgment.”

The Court reiterated that financial constraints cannot override fundamental rights, and public institutions must organise work on lawful lines.

Bombay High Court Reaffirms Labour Rights as Constitutional Rights in Public Employment

This judgment serves as a resounding affirmation of the principle that the Constitution does not permit exploitation, even in the name of administrative policy or budgetary constraints. Justice Milind N. Jadhav’s reasoning blends statutory labour protections with constitutional mandates of fairness and dignity, setting a crucial precedent for long-serving temporary employees in public institutions.

The Court’s message is clear: “Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality—it is constitutional discipline.”

Date of Decision: 30 September 2025