PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS vs. RAVI ARJUN JAGTE AND ORS

2024:BHC-AS:33277
k 1 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1860 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1455 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1860 OF 2024
1 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Through its Municipal Commissioner,
th
PCMC Main Building, 4 Floor, Pimpri,
Pune – 411 018.
2 The Municipal Commissioner
Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
3 The Standing Committee,
Through its Chairman
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
4 The Zonal Officer “A” Zone,
O/at – Pradhikaran, Sector 25 Nigdi
Pune – 411 044.
5 The Zonal Officer “B” Zone
PCMC, O/at – Chinchwadgaon
Pune – 411 033.
6 The Zonal Officer “C” Zone
PCMC, O/at – Near Polygrass
Hockey Stadium, Nehrunagar,
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
katkam Page No. 1

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 2 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

7 The Zonal Officer “D” Zone,
PCMC, O/at Pimpri Colony,
Pimprigaon, Pimpri, Pune – 411 017. ....Petitioners
V/S
1. Ravi Arjun Jagte,
Society, Sector No.21,
Yamuna Nagar,
Nigdi, Pune – 44.
2 Dinkar Goroba Manjre,
Boudha Nagar, Sector No.22,
Nigdi, Pune – 44.
3 Sanju Vaman Vavre
Annabhau Sathe Vasahat
Room No.197, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
4. Ashok Madanlal Tamboli,
Kalbhomagar, Akrudi, Pune – 35.
5. Sambhaji Maruti Dhende,
Anantnagar, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
6. Suresh Baburao Kasale
Bhuiraj Niwas, Akurdi, Pune – 35.
7. Dinkar Baleam Salve
Jadhav Vasti, Akurdi, Pune – 35.
8. Raju Vaman Vavre,
Annabhau Sathe Nagar,
Room No.197, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
9. Parshuram Shamrao Gawade,
Room No.128, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
katkam Page No. 2

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 3 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

10 Prakash Dagadu Kondgire,
Sitaram Gawade Chawl,
Chinchwad Station, Pune – 19
Annabhau Sathe Nagar.
13 Deepak Nana Padale
Kalbhor Nagar, Akurdi, Pune – 35.
14 Santosh Vasant Dalvi
Legal heir of deceased
Ashwini Santosh Dalvi,
Scheme No.5, Sector – 21,
Room No.18/12, Yamunanagar,
Yamunanagar, Nigdi, Pune – 44. (Deceased)
15. Aba Dada Mane
Legal heir of deceased Vishal Aba Mane,
Dattanagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19. (Deceased)
16. Kailash Babu Gajarmal,
Ajanta Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19.
17. Sunil Laxman Jagtap,
Boudha Vasti, Akurdi, Pune 35.
18. Jyotiram Nivrutti Rajguru,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahulnagar,
Nigdi, Pune 44.
19. Sambhaji Balu Daware,
Rupke Colony, Dattawadi, Pune.
20. Raju Gunda Mate,
Akurdi Station, Pune 35.
katkam Page No. 3

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 4 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

21. Shivaji Madhukar Rokde,
Milindnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
22. Joe Anthony Das,
Sector No. 21, Scheme No. 6,
Yamunnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
23. Balu Kisan Pawar,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahul Nagar,
Nigdi, Pune 44.
24. Hanumant Sandeepan Kale,
Ambedkar Bhavan, Akurdi, Pune 35.
25. Hanumant B. Bhalekar,
Pimple Saudagar Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
26. Vilas Sitaram Gade,
Dattawadi, Akurdi, Pune 35.
27. Raju Shivaji Shelar,
Sainathnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
28. Manoj Suvaram Chowria,
Kalbhomnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
29. Ravindra Vasant Deshmukh,
Legal heir of the deceased
Smt. Sunita Ravindra Deshmukh,
Akurdi Gaon Yaikar Marg, Pune 35. (Deceased)
30. Viju Shahu Aathawale,
Sector No.22, Otta Scheme, Nigdi,
Ganganagar, Akurdi, Pune 35.
31. Balasaheb Prabhakar Kalje,
Waykar Chawl, Vitthalwadi,
Akurdi, Pune 35.
katkam Page No. 4

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 5 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

32. Satish Prabhakar Sagwekar,
Sector No. 28, Prachi Society,
Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pune 44.
33. Subhash Vithal Jagtap,
Ambedkar Wasti, Akurdi Gaon, Pune 35.
34. Joseph Gopinath Tribhuvan,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahulnagar, Nidgi, Pune 44.
35. Dattatraya Vinayak Kamble,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahulnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
36. Pramod Bandopant Thombre
Legal heir of the deceased
Pradhnya Pramod Thombre,
27A, Pradhikaran, Pratapgad,
Nigdi, Pune 44. (Deceased)
37. Narayan Shivdas Chavan,
Vijaynagar, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
38. Prakash Bhiva Kamble,
Panchtaranagar, Umesh Nivas,
Akurdi, Pune 35.
39. Ramesh Dnyanoba Shelar,
Aboli Housing Society,
Krishnanagar, Chikli Road, Pune 19.
40. Jayant Nilkanth Abigo,
Pimpri, Pune 17.
41. Balu Chandar Pote.
Pimpri, Pune -17.
katkam Page No. 5

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 6 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

42. Manoj Prabhakar Tapase,
Tapkimagar, Opp. M.M. School
Kalewadi, Pune-17.
43. Vaman Tukaram Kharat,
Pimprigaon, Pune-17.
44. Balu Murlidhar Telang,
Sudarshannagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune 35.
45. Ramkisan Vedprakash Bhala.
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
46. Dilip Astak Sawant,
Gandhinagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
47. Ganesh Babanrao Pawar,
Chinchwad Station, Telco Road, Pune 33.
48. Ramling Baburao Gaikwad,
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
49. Vasant Khandu Gaikwad,
Power House Chowk,
Chinchwad Gaon, Pune 33.
50. Kamlesh Rampratish Dhulia,
Boudh Nagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
51. Dattatraya Dagdu Siddhaganesh,
Dalvinagar Slum, Behind Telco Company,
Chinchwad, Pune 33.
52. Gorakh Manik Gunjal,
Pimpri, Pune 17,
katkam Page No. 6

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 7 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

53. Rajesh Sanjay Pujari,
Maheshnagar, Atlas Capco,
Nehrunagar, Pune 18.
54. Rajesh Chandrakant Dhotre,
Gandhinagar, Kharalwadi, Pimpri, Pune 18.
55. Pundlik Dadarao Magar,
Bhondve Vasti, Walhekarwadi,
Chinchwad, Pune 33.
56. Rajendra R. Shinde,
Pimpri, Pune 17.
57. Prakash Laxman Jagtap,
Bhoi Aali, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
58. Bhima Bhiva Salve,
Gandhinagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
59. Manik Shivdas Kamble,
Kailashnagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
60. Yadav Shravan Kuchekar,
Patrayachi Chawl, Link Road,
Chinchwad, Pune 33.
61. Raju Baban Jagtap,
MIDC Colony, Pimpri, Pune 17.
62. Uttam Shripati Rakhpasare,
Anandnagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune 19.
63. Yallapa Allyappa Chalwadi,
Annasaheb Magar Stadium,
Chinchwad Station, Pune 19.
katkam Page No. 7

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 8 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

64. Ramesh Dnynoba Gawli,
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Dinesh Ramesh Gawali, Pimprigaon. Pune 17.
65. Suresh Bhagwan Chavan,
Jaihind Nagar, Thergaon, Pune 33.
66. Gorakh Bhaguji Maske,
Bhimnagar, Pimpri Gaon, Pune 17.
67. Gautam Tulshiram Jagtap,
Pimple Saudagar, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
68. Stepan John Gaikwad,
Navi Sangvi, Pune.
69. Shilanand Shamrao Suryawanshi,
Navi Sangvi, Pune 27.
70. Raju Vitthal Mahadik,
Shitolenagar, Sangvi, Pune 27.
71. Vitthal Kondiba Sagat,
Shitolenagar, Sangvi, Pune 27,
72. Kailash Masaji Chandanshive
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Lata Kailas Chandanshive,
Near Dhondiraj Mangal Karyalaya,
Tapkirnagar, Kalewadi, Pune. (Deceased)
73. Kiran Prakash Alhat,
Bhimnagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
74. Sambhaji Shankarrao Gorkhe,
Padwalnagar, Thergaon, Pune 33.
katkam Page No. 8

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 9 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

75. Rajesh Pandurang Jagtap,
Pimple Saudagar, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
76. Vinod Vitthal Kamble,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune 17.
77. Digambar Shankar Khopkar
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Laxmi Digambar Khopkar,
Shiv Parvati Niwas, Near Jaibhavaninagar,
Pimple Gurav, Pune 27. (Deceased)
78. Satish Ashruba Lakhe,
Tharegaon, Pune 33.
79. Sanjay Jaysing Bhosale,
Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Thergaon, Pune 33.
80. Ashok Punjaram Jagtap.
Nadhenagar, Kalewadi, Pune 17.
81. Dipaknand Babau Tambe,
Jaymala Nagar, Sangvi, Pune - 27.
82. Manohar Bansi Makar,
Makar Chawl, Sangvi, Pune - 27.
83. Shamrao Sawkar Kamble,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune - 17.
84. Daulat Aatmaram Pawar,
Uday Mens Wear, Nadhenagar,
Kalewadi, Pune - 17.
85. Narayan Keru Jadhav,
Jyotiba Nagar, Ashwini Colony,
Kalewadi, Pune - 17.
katkam Page No. 9

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 10 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

86. Rajendara Atmaram Bhosale,
Aaba Kate Chawl, Dapodi, Pune 411 012.
87. Mangesh Haibati Kamble,
Chandramani Sangh, Sangvi, Pune - 27.
88. Santosh Vitthal Nikalje,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune 17.
89. Nitin Bhagwan Kamble,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune 17.
90. Rais Ahmed,
Nadhenagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
91. Nitin Kachru Gaikwad,
Aba Kate Chawl, Dapodi, Pune 12.
92. Prashant Puran Kumbhar,
Trimurti Sadan, Shitolenagar,
Sangvi, Pune 27.
93. Rajendra A. Survase
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Gaurav Rajendra Survase,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune. (Deceased)
94. Laxman Vidurath Gaikwad,
Ganesh Nagar, Pimpri Waghere, Pune 17.
95. Mahendra Vitthal Adsul,
Vairat Chawl, Dapodi, Pune - 12.
96. Sahebrao Keshav Raut,
New Sangvi, Pune - 27.
katkam Page No. 10

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 11 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

97. Kailash Shankar Gorkhe,
Padvalnagar, Thergaon, Pune -33.
98. Shahaji Santosh Borse,
Govind Mukne Chawl,
Survey No. 56, Navi Sangvi, Pune 27.
99. Shankar Husen Lokhande
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Durgaji Shankar Lokhande,
Pimplegurav, Vaidu Vasti,
Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune. (Deceased)
100. Rahul Madhukar Jadhav,
Ravet, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
101. Dattatray Nivrutti Kamble,
Bhoite Chawl, S. No. 16, Bopodi, Pune 3.
102. Raju Pandurang Sable,
Anandvan Aashram, Dapodi, Pune 12.
103. Sanjay Shamrao Waghmare,
Bhoite Chawl, S. No. 16, Bopodi, Pune 411003.
104. Rajesh Sultansingh Walmiki.
Patrayache Shed, Link Road, Pimpri, Pune 18.
105. Kashinath Namdev Kamble
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Nilesh Kashinath Kamble, 10/111 H.I.G.,
Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune- 18. (Deceased)
106. Kishor Vishwanath Kharat,
Ruston Colony, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
katkam Page No. 11

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 12 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

107. Ravindra Sambhaji Yadav,
Dalvi Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune -33.
108. Vijay Saurappa Talare,
Anand Nagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune -19.
109. Sharannappa Yaamaappa Mhetre,
Gandhi Nagar, In Front of Mahindra Company,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
110. Chandrakant Bhimsen Javale,
Kailashnagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
111. Ashok Midmal Kalla,
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19.
112. Machchindra Fakir Sonawane,
Dalvinagar, Chincwad, Pune -33.
113. Vhikamsingh Kishorilal Valmiki.
Pune.
114. Deepak Keshav Dhotre,
Pune.
115. Rajendra Dhanraj Fadtare,
Thergaon, Pune - 33.
116. Suryakant Damodar Chabukswar,
Behind Padamaji Paper Mill,
Kejudevi Nagar, Suresh Barne Chawl,
Thergaon, Pune-33.
117. Wajir Mehboob Saudagar,
Dange Chowk, Thergaon, Pune-33.
118. Shivaji Laxman Nimhan,
Jaibhavani Nagar, Gurav Pimple, Pune.
katkam Page No. 12

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 13 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

119. Mukesh R. Bandwal,
Ajantha Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune -19.
120. Vikas Pralhad Waghmare,
Shastri Nagar, In Front of Buddha Mandir,
Pimpri, Pune - 17.
121. Prabhakar Pralhad Waghmare,
Shastri Nagar, Opp. Boudh Mandir,
Pimpri, Pune-17.
122. Anil Parshuram Jadhav,
Near Vitthalnagar Slum,
Nehrunagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
123. Dilip Tribak Bangar,
Landewadi, Bhosari, Pune-39.
124. Chandrakant Vilas Vaidande,
Gavlimatha, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune -39.
125. Nitin Anant Jadhav,
Landewadi, Bhosari, Pune -49.
126. Kailash Manjaba Khude,
Babasaheb Landge Chawl,
Gavadevasti, Bhosari, Pune -39.
127. Raju Sahebrao Dolas,
Didhi Road, Adarsh Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune -39.
128. Bhimrao Rajaram Pawar,
Adarsh Nagar, Bhima Dolas Chawi,
Bhosari, Pune-39.
katkam Page No. 13

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 14 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

129. Ramesh Laxman Gosavi,
Alandi Road, Shriram Colony,
Bhosari, Pune 39.
130. Raju Jagannath Jagtap,
Chinchwadgaon, Bhimnagar, Pune - 33.
131. Vijay Shamrao Borhade,
Pacharnewada, Bhosarigaon, Pune - 39.
132. Naresh Mohan Saigal,
Behind Marathi School, Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
133. Subhash Narayan Gaikwad,
Fanase Chawl, Near Vitthal Mandir,
Pimpri, Pune -18.
134. Loarence Bhanudas Gaikwad,
Near Shinde Pith bhatti, Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
135. Balaram Shankar Mergu,
Dattoba Landge Chawl, Kasarwadi, Pune - 37.
136. Ramdas Dattu Landge,
Gawalimatha, M.1.D.C., Bhosari, Pune - 26.
137. Santosh Janba Karkude,
Opp. Rashtraprem Vayam School,
Dighi Road, Pune - 39.
138. Nandu Gangaram Gavhane,
Senchuri Eanka Colony, Bhosari, Pune -39.
katkam Page No. 14

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 15 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

139. Trimbak Bhagwat Toke
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Vaibhav Trimbak Bhagwat,
Dighi Road, Opp. Tulai Mandir,
Bhosari, Pune-411039. (Deceased)
140. Bhaskar Bhaurao Dasal,
Post Road, West Pandav Nagar,
Near Dr. Deokar, Bhosari, Pune 39.
141. Sunil Diwaki Borge,
Dighi Road, Bhosari, Pune -39.
142. Madhukar Damodar Shinde,
Gavhane Vasi, P.C.M.T. Chowk,
Bhosari. Pune.
143. Sanjay Bhikaji Jadhav,
Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 18.
144. Sunil Sudhakar Kudchikar,
Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 18.
145. Somnath Sawalaram Jadhav,
Jai Maharashtra Chowk, Alandi Road,
Bhosari (East), Pune.
146. Sunil Raghunath Bhosale,
Gulve Vasti, Bhosari, Pune -39.
147. Sanjay Tulshiram Landge,
Landewadi, Bhosari, Pune - 18.
148. Laxman Tukaram Nalawade,
Vijay Prabha Hsg. Soc., Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune -18.
katkam Page No. 15

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 16 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

149. Raju Baban Dhasal,
Khandobamal, Kisan Shinde Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune-39.
150. Kundan Vitthal Nikam,
Popat Tapkir Chawl,
Kasarwadi, Pune - 34.
151. Shambhaji Sopan Shinde,
Landewadi, Vitthal Nagar, Bhosari, Pune-39.
152. Balu Dynoba Dolas,
P.M.T. Chowk, Ashoknagar, Bhosari, Pune-39.
153. Vishwanath Manjaba Khude,
Dhawade Vasti, Bhosari, Pune - 39.
154. Satish Baburao Gavhane
Legal Heirs of the deceased
Sunita Satish Gavhane,
P.M.T. Chawk, Gavhane Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune 39. (Deceased)
155. Hanumanta Madapapa Kale,
Sanjay Nagar, Phugewadi, Pune - 2.
156. Madhu Gurapapa Shinde
Legal Heirs of the deceased
Surekha Madhu Shinde,
Vijay Prabha Hsg. Soc.,
Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 18 (Deceased)
157. Datta Deoman Kachi,
Sanjay Nagar, Phugewadi, Pune - 12.
158. Ashok Ramaswami Takale,
Nehru Nagar Slum, Pimipri, Pune 18.
katkam Page No. 16

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 17 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

159. Ravindrasingh Japansingh Bhat,
Bhatnagar, Punarwasan Prakalpa,
Buld. No. 5, Room No. 21, Pimpri, Pune.
160. Sunil Namdev Kamble,
10/111 H.I.G., Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.
161. Siddhodan Popat Chavan,
At Post - Dehugaon, Tal - Haveli, Dist – Pune.
162. Vilas Goruba Sonawane,
Bhagat Vasti, Hanuman Nagar, Bhosari, Pune -39.
163. Vijay Sadu Daundkar,
Vijay Prabha Hsg. Soc., Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
164. Dashrath Bhima Gunjal,
Gunjal Chawl, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
165. Balu Kondiram Salve,
1041, Navni, Nanapeth, Pune - 12.
166. Kailash Bapu Kamble,
Landewasti, Kasanyadi, Pune.
167. Sukhadev Jayant Phuge,
Alandi Road, Lalbahadur Shastri Chowk,
Behind Dhankawade Chawl, Bhosari Pune-39.
168. Bapu Sahebrao Ahivale,
Bhagwat Vasti, Bhosari Pune-39.
169. Dynaneshwar Narayan Mate,
Phugewadi, Phanchagewada, Pune - 12.
katkam Page No. 17

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 18 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

170. Sanjay Namdev Khilare,
Jaywant Barane Chawl,
Sant Dnyneshwar Nagar,
Thergaon, Pune -33.
171. Subhash Yalappa Cabukshwar,
Kalbhor Nagar, Near Gupta Hotel,
Chinchwad, Pune - 19.
172. Babasaheb Bharat Londhe,
In Front of L-pro Company,
Vijay Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
173. Vijay Sherba Kamble
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Sagar Vijay Kamble, Vijaynagar,
Chinchwadgaon, Pune - 33. (Deceased)
174. Satish Nagnath Chandanshive,
In Front of L-pro Company,
Vijay Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
175. Sunil Baban Kunjir,
Budhanagar, River Road, Buld. No. 16,
Room No. 1, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
176. Prakash Maruti Ghubade,
Laltopi Nagar, Morewadi, Pimpri, Pune 18.
177. Suryakant Babanrao Mohite,
Behind Bhairavnath Mandir,
Sathe Chowk, Chinchwad, Pune - 19.
178. Sopan Dadu Londhe,
Tanajirao Londhe Chawl,
Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
katkam Page No. 18

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 19 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

179. Suresh Kisan Pallari,
Anand Nagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune-19.
180. Pathan Lature Bothe,
Indiranagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune -19.
181. Vijay Dhondu Tambe,
Budhanagar, River Road,
Buld. No. 16, Room No. 33, Pimpri Pune.
182. Raju Ramdas Waghmare,
Udyog Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
183. Sanjay Baban Gadkari,
Near Bhairavnath Madir,
Chinchwadgaon, Pune -33.
184. Malhari Balu Kamble,
Anandnagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune - 19.
185. Vishnu Rambhau Adagale,
Londhe Chawl, Balaji Nagar,
Chinchwad, Pune-33.
186. Sanjay Gangaram Jadhav,
Vijaynagar, Opp. L-pro Company,
Chinchwadgaon, Pune 33.
187. Shantaram Shetiba Pawar,
Indira Nagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune - 19.
188. Balasaheb Shreepatrao Gadkari,
Gawade Vasti, Bhoirali, Chinchwadgaon, Pune 33.
katkam Page No. 19

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 20 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

189. Narayan Suryaji Jadhav
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Suresh Narayan Jadhav,
Opp. Jay Bharat Tarun Mandal,
Shashri Nagar, Pimpri, Pune – 17. (Deceased)
190. Ashok Jagdev Jadhav,
Morwadi, Pimpri, Pune 18.
191. Narayan Rambhau Ujagare
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Akash Narayan Jadhav, Bhat Nagar,
Build. No.-13, Pimpri, Pune 17. (Deceased)
192. Anant Sahdeo Gotal,
Dhawade Vasti, Shiv Ganesh Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune 39.
193. Sanjay Eknath Pansare,
Dhawade Vasti, Baba Landge Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune -39.
194. Kakuram Balbhim Kengar,
Kengar Niwas, Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune - 18.
195. Sameer Namdev Dolas
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Smt. Seema Sameer Dolas,
Namganga Niwas, Rashtraprem Nagar,
Near New Priyadarshani School,
Dighi Road, Bhosari, Pune - 39. (Deceased)
196. Rajiv Pujaji Wadagale,
Alandi Road, At. Post. Moshi, Tal-Haveli, Dist. Pune.
katkam Page No. 20

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 21 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

197. Pandarinath Kashinath Shinde
Legal Heirs Of the Deceased
Rahul Pandharinath Shinde,
Boudh Nagar, Building No. 14,
Room No. 52, Pimpri, Pune – 17. (Deceased)
198. Sarjerao Honaji Turukmare,
Budhanagar, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
199. Jitendra Kashinath Dakhale,
Tapkirnagar, Kalewadi, Pune 17.
200. Sanjay Narayan Patil,
Shitole Nagar, Sangvi, Pune - 27.
201. Subhash Tukaram Goikar,
Kalewadi, Pawana Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
202, Chandrakant Yalappa Kamble,
Priyadarshni Nagar, Sangvi, Pune - 27.
203. Balu Nagu Danke,
Pimpri River Road, Budhanagar,
Build. No. 16, Room No.-20,
Pimpri, Pune - 17.
204. Anand Ramprasad Khokar,
Senitari Chawl, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
205. Sanjay Nivruti Gholap
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Meena Sanjay Gholap, Budhanagar,
Building No.14, Room No.52,
Pimpri-Camp, Pune - 17. (Deceased)
206. Devidas Dhanaji Bhosale,
Ramabai Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
katkam Page No. 21

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 22 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

207. Kishor Dattatray Khengare,
Near Pagechi Talim, Chinchwadgaon,
Pune 33.
208. Datta Laxman Adagale,
Shastrinagar, Pimpri, Pune 411017
209. Navnath Bhanudas Kharat,
Budhanagar, Build. No. 15, Room No. 24,
Pimpri, Pune-17.
210. Sitaram Dattu Parkhe,
Morwadi, Pimpri, Pune - 18.
211. Vishwas Laxman Tapkir
Legal Heirs of the Deceased
Shubham Vishwas Tapkir,
Pimprigaon Shindeali,
Kalapurewada, Pune - 411 017. (Deceased)
212. Ramesh Mahadev Rankhambe,
Shastri Nagar, Pimprigaon, Pune - 17
213. Malakappa Nagppa Koli,
Mahatma Phule Nagar,
Bhosari, M.ID.C., Pune-26.
214. Shakil Usman Shaikh,
Pimple Nilakh, Aundh Camp,
Pune-27.
215. Ramesh Piraji Bhise,
Pimple Soudagar, Tal. - Haveli, Dist.- Pune.
216. Santosh Manohar Pawar,
Malali, Pimprigaon, Pune – 17. ....Respondents
________
katkam Page No. 22

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 23 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4931 OF 2003
1 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
(through its Municipal Commissioner,
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
2 The Municipal Commissioner
Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
3 The Standing Committee,
(through its Chairman)
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
4 The Zonal Officer “A” Zone,
P.C.M.C. Office at Pradhikaran,
Sector 25, Nigdi, Pune – 411 011.
5 The Zonal Officer “B” Zone
PCMC, Office at – Chinchwadgaon
Pune – 411 033.
6 The Zonal Officer “C” Zone
PCMC, Office at – Near Polygrass
Hockey Stadium, Nehrunagar,
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
7 The Zonal Officer “D” Zone,
PCMC, Office at Pimpri Colony,
Pimprigaon, Pimpri, Pune – 411 017. ....Petitioners
V/S
1. Mahapalika and Parivahan Kamgar Aghadi,
Pimpri Chinchwad, (through its General
Secretary – Shri Sunbhash Sareen,
Office at 32/7, Sector 28, Ganganagar,
Nigdi, Pune 411 044.
katkam Page No. 23

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 24 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

2 Ravi Arjun Jagate,
43/16, Trupti Housing Society,
Sector No.21, Scheme No.10,
Yamuna Nagar, Nigdi, Pune – 411 044.
3 Dinkar Goroba Manjare,
Boudha Nagar, Sector No.22,
Nigdi, Pune – 411 044.
4 Sanju Waman Waware
Annabhau Sathe Vasahat
Room No.197, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
5. Ashok Madanlal Tamboli,
Kalbhor, Pune – 35.
6. Sambhaji Maruti Dhende,
Anantnagar, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
7. Shivaji Zitinga Gaikwad,
8 Suresh Baburao Kasale
Bhuiraj Niwas, Akurdi, Pune – 35.
9. Dinkar Baliram Salve
Jadhav Vasti, Akurdi, Pune – 35.
10. Raju Waman Waware,
Annabhau Sathe Nagar,
Room No.197, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
11 Chandrakant Ramdas Jadhav
Kalewadi, Nadenagar,
Near Rupsangama Bunglow, Pune.
12. Parshuram Shamrao Gawade,
Annabhau Sathenagar,
Room No.128, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
katkam Page No. 24

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 25 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

13 Balu Keru Jagtap
Mohan Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune 411 019.
14 Prakash Dagadu Kodagire,
Sitaram Gawade Chawl,
Chinchwad Station, Pune – 19
15 Deepak Nana Padale
Kalbhor Nagar, Akurdi, Pune – 35.
16 Santosh Vasant Dalvi
Scheme No.5, Sector – 21,
Room No.18/12, Yamunanagar,
Yamunanagar, Nigdi, Pune – 44.
17. Aba Dada Mane
Dattanagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19.
18. Kailash Babu Gajarmal,
Ajanta Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19.
19. Sunil Laxman Jagtap,
Boudha Vasti, Akurdi, Pune 35.
20. Jyotiram Nivrutti Rajguru,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahulnagar,
Nigdi, Pune 44.
21. Sambhaji Balu Daware,
Rupke Colony, Dattawadi, Pune.
22. Raju Goonda Mate,
Akurdi Railway Station, Pune 35.
23. Dashrath Tulshiram Shelar
Dattanagar, Chinchwad, Pune – 19.
katkam Page No. 25

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 26 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

24 Shivaji Madhukar Rokade,
Milindnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
25. Joe Anthony Das,
Sector No. 21, Scheme No. 6,
House No.2/9, Yamunnagar,
Nigdi, Pune 44.
26. Balu Kisan Pawar,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahul Nagar,
Nigdi, Pune 44.
27. Hanumant Sandipan Kale,
Awedak Bhavan, Akurdi, Pune 35.
28. Hanumant B. Bhalekar,
Pimple Saudagar Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
29. Tushar Mahadeo Gawade,
Gawade Chawl, Chinchwad Station, Pune.
30 Vilas Sitaram Gade,
Dattawadi, Akurdi, Pune 35.
31. Raju Shivaji Shelar,
Sainathnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
32. Baban Ashok Sarode
Vidhyanagar, Chinchwad, Pune -19.
33 Manoj Suvaram Chawaria,
Kalbhornagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
34. Ramchandra Vasant Deshmukh,
Akurdi village, Waykar Marg, Pune.
katkam Page No. 26

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 27 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

35. Viju Shahu Athavale,
Sector No.22, Ota, Nigdi,
Ganganagar, Akurdi, Pune 35.
36. Balasaheb Prabhakar Kalje,
Waikar Chawl, Vitthalwadi,
Akurdi, Pune 35.
37. Satish Prabhakar Sagvekar,
Sector No. 28, Prachi Society,
Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pune 44.
38. Subhash Vithal Jagtap,
Ambedkar Wasti, Akurdi village, Pune 35.
39. Joseph Gopinath Tribhuvan,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahulnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
40. Dattatraya Vinayak Kamble,
Ambedkar Vasahat, Rahulnagar, Nigdi, Pune 44.
41. Deepak Jaysing More,
Mohnagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19.
42 Pramod Bandopant Thombre
27A, Pradhikaran, Parataparh,
Nigdi, Pune 44.
43. Anil Sidram Kamble,
Vidyanagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19.
44 Narayan Shivdas Chavan,
Vijaynagar, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
45. Prakash Bhiwa Kamble,
Panchtaranagar, Umesh Nivas,
Akurdi, Pune 35.
katkam Page No. 27

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 28 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

46. Laxman Dnyanoba Shelar,
Aboli Housing Society,
Krishnanagar, Chikhali Road, Pune 19.
47. Jayant Nilkanth Abigo,
Pimpri, Pune 17.
48. Balu Chandar Pote.
Pimpri, Pune -17.
49. Rajesh Chandrakant Bhosale
Sector No.27-A, Ota Scheme,
Akurdi, Pune – 44.
50 Manoj Dinkar Tapase,
51. Mahendra Ramchandra Bansode,
52 Waman Tukaram Kharat,
53 Shankar Bhagwan Arde
Ota Scheme, Nigdi, Pune.
54. Vijay Dattu Jadhav
Mahatma Phule Nagar,
55 Dilip Dadu Jadhav
Mahatma Phule Nagar
56 Balu Murlidhar Telang,
Sudarshannagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune 35.
57. Nilkanth Pandurang Otari
residing at Wakad, Taluka Tulshi,
District Pune.
58 Rama Kisan Vedprakash Bhala.
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
katkam Page No. 28

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 29 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

59. Dilip A. Sawant,
Gandhinagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
60. Ganesh Babanrao Pawar,
Chinchwad Station, Telco Road, Pune 33.
61. Ramling Baburao Gaikwad,
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
62. Vasant Khandu Gaikwad,
Power House Chowk,
Chinchwad Gaon, Pune 33.
63. Kamlesh Rampratish Dhulia,
Boudh Nagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
64. Dattatraya Dagdu Siddhaganesh,
Dalvinagar, Zopadpatti, Behind Telco Company,
Chinchwad, Pune 33.
65. Gorakh Manik Gunjal,
Pimpri, Pune 17,
66. Rajesh Sanjay Poojari,
Maheshnagar, Atlas Caffe,
Nehrunagar, Pune 18.
67. Rajesh Chandrakant Dhotre,
Gandhinagar, Kharalwadi, Pimpri, Pune 18.
68. Pundlik Dadarao Magar,
Bhondve Vasti, Valhekarwadi,
Chinchwad, Pune 33.
69. Rajendra R. Shinde,
Pimpri, Pune 17.
katkam Page No. 29

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 30 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

70. Prakash Laxman Jagtap,
Bhoi Aali, Chinchwad, Pune 33.
71. Bhima Bhiva Salve,
Gandhinagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
72. Manik Shivdas Kamble,
Kailashnagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
73. Yadav Shravan Kuchekar,
Patrayachi Chawl, Link Road,
Chinchwad, Pune 33.
74. Raju Baban Jagtap,
MIDC Colony, Pimpri, Pune 17.
75. Uttam Shripati Rakhpasare,
Anandnagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune 19.
76. Yallapa Allyappa Chalwadi,
Annasaheb Magar Stadium,
Chinchwad Station, Pune 19.
77. Ramesh Dnyanoba Gawli,
78. Suresh Bhagwan Chavan,
Jayhind Nagar, Dhergaon, Pune 33.
79. Gorakh Bhaguji Maske,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune 17.
80. Gautam Tulshiram Jagtap,
Pimple Saudagar, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
81. Steven John Gaikwad,
Navi Sangvi, Pune.
katkam Page No. 30

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 31 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

82. Sheelanand Shamrao Suryawanshi,
Navi Sangvi, Pune 27.
83. Raju Vitthal Mahadik,
Shitolenagar, Sangvi, Pune 27.
84. Vitthal Kondiba Sagat,
Shitolenagar, Sangvi, Pune 27,
85. Kailash Masaji Chandanshive
Near Dhondiraj Mangal Karyalaya,
Tapkirnagar, Kalewadi, Pune.
86. Kiran Prakash Alhat,
Bhimnagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
87. Sambhaji Shankarrao Gorakhe,
Padwalnagar, Dhergaon, Pune 33.
88. Rajesh Pandurang Jagtap,
Pimple Saudagar, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
89. Vinod Vitthal Kamble,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune 17.
90. Kiran Chandrakant Kamble,
Priyadarshaninagar, Sanghvi, Pune 27.
91 Digambar Shankar Khopkar
Shiv Parvati Niwas, Near Jaibhavaninagar,
Pimplegurav, Pune 27.
92. SantoshBalbhim Sharkhan,
At post Rahatani, Pawananagar,
Kalewadi, Pune 17.
katkam Page No. 31

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 32 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

93 Satish Abuba Lakhe,
94. Sanjay Jaysing Bhosale,
Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Dhergaon, Pune 33.
95. Ashok Punjaram Jagtap.
Nadhenagar, Kalewadi, Pune 17.
96. Deepaknand Babau Tambe,
Jaymala Nagar, Sangvi, Pune - 27.
97. Manohar Bansi Makar,
Makarchawl, Sanghvi, Pune - 27.
98. Shamrao Sawakar Kamble,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaum, Pune - 17.
99. Daulat Aatmaram Pawar,
Aday Mens Ware, Nadhenagar,
Kalewadi, Pune - 17.
100. Narayan Keru Jadhav,
Jyotiba Nagar, Ashwini Colony,
Kalewadi, Pune - 17.
101. Rajendara Atmaram Bhosale,
Abakate Chawl, Dapodi, Pune 411 012.
102. Mangesh Haibati Kamble,
Chandramani Sangh, Sangvi, Pune - 27.
103. Santosh Vitthal Nikalje,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune 17.
104. Nitin Bhagwan Kamble,
Bhimnagar, Pimprigaon, Pune 17.
katkam Page No. 32

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 33 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

105. Rais Ahmed,
Nadhenagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
106 Rajbeer RevatisinghSorati
Adarshnagar, Kemse Girni,
Kalewadi, Pune 17.
107 Nitin Kachru Gaikwad,
Abakate Chawl, Dapodi, Pune 12.
108. Prashant Puran Kumbhar,
Trimurti Sadan, Shitolenagar,
Sangvi, Pune 27.
109. Kamlesh Bansraj Prajapati,
Bajirao Barne Chawl, Dhergaon, Pune 33.
110 Rajendra Survase
Bhimnagar, Pimpri village Pune.
111. Laxman Vidurath Gaikwad,
Ganesh Nagar, Pimpri Vaghere, Pune 17.
112. Mahendra Vitthal Adsul,
Vairat Chawl, Dapodi, Pune - 12.
113. Sahebrao Keshav Raut,
New Sangvi, Pune - 27.
114. Kailash Shankar Gorakhe,
Padvalnagar, Thergaon, Pune -33.
115. Bhausaheb Shivaji Adulkar
Kalewadi, Jyhotiba Nagar, Pune – 17.
116 Shahaji Santosh Borase,
katkam Page No. 33

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 34 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

117. Shankar Hussein Lokhande
Pimplegurav, Vaiduvasti,
Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
118. Rahul Madhukar Jadhav,
Rawet, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
119. Dattatray Nivrutti Kamble,
Bhoite Chawl, S. No. 16, Bopodi, Pune 3.
120. Raju Pandurang Sable,
Anandvan Aashram, Dapodi, Pune 12.
121. Sanjay Shamrao Waghmare,
Bhoite Chawl, S. No. 16, Bopodi, Pune 411003.
122. Rajesh Sultansingh Walmiki.
Pamyache Shed, Link Road, Pimpri, Pune 18.
123. Kashinath Namdev Kamble
10/111 H.I.G.,
Saint Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune- 18.
124. Kishor Vishwanath Kharat,
Ruston Colony, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
125. Ravindra Sambhaji Yadav,
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune -33.
126. Vijay Saurappa Talare,
Anandnagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune -19.
127. Sharannappa Yellappa Mhetre,
Gandhi Nagar, Behind Mahindra Company,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
128. Chandrakant Bhimsen Jawale,
Kailashnagar, Pimpri, Pune 17.
katkam Page No. 34

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 35 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

129. Ashok Midmal Kalla,
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune 19.
130. Machchindra Fakir Sonawane,
Dalvinagar, Chincwad, Pune -33.
131. Vhikamsingh Kishorilal Walmiki.
Dalvinagar, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
132. Deepak Keshav Dhotre,
Pune.
133. Navnath Chander Chavan,
Yashoda Niwas, Ganeshnagar,
Dhergaon, Pune – 33.
134 Rajendra Dhanraj Phadtare,
Dhergaon, Pune - 33.
135. Suryakant Damodar Chabukswar,
Behind Padamaji Paper Mill,
Kejudevi Nagar, Suresh Barne Chawl,
Dhergaon, Pune-33.
136. Vajir Mehboob Saudagar,
Dange Chowk, Dhergaon, Pune-33.
137. Shivaji Laxman Nimhan,
Jaybhavani Nagar, Gurav Pimple, Pune.
138. Ankush Zorak Bhosale
139 Shankar Sahebrao Gaikwad
140 Mukesh R. Bandwal,
Ajantha Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune -19.
katkam Page No. 35

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 36 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

141. Vikas Pralhad Waghmare,
Shastri Nagar, In Front of Buddha Mandir,
Pimpri, Pune - 17.
142. Prabhakar Pralhad Waghmare,
Shastri Nagar, Opp. Boudh Mandir,
Pimpri, Pune-17.
143. Anil Parshuram Jadhav,
Near Vitthalnagar Zopadpatti,
Nehrunagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
144. Dilip Tribak Bangar,
Landewadi, Bhosari, Pune-39.
145. Chandrakant Vilas Waidande,
Gawlimatha, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune -39.
146. Nitin Anant Jadhav,
Landewadi, Bhosari, Pune -49.
147. Kailash Manjaba Khude,
Babasaheb Landge Chawl,
Gawadevasti, Bhosari, Pune -39.
148. Raju Sahebrao Dolas,
Didhi Road, Adarsh Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune -39.
149. Bhimrao Rajaram Pawar,
Adarsh Nagar, Bhima Dolas Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune-39.
150. Ramesh Laxman Gosavi,
Alandi Road, Shriram Colony,
Bhosari, Pune 39.
katkam Page No. 36

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 37 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

151. Raju Jagannath Jagtap,
Chinchwadgaon, Bhimnagar, Pune - 33.
152. Vijay Shamrao Borhade,
Pacharanwadi, Bhosarigaon, Pune - 39.
153. Naresh Mohan Saigal,
Behind Marathi School, Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
154. Subhash Narayan Gaikwad,
Phanse Chawl, Near Vitthal Mandir,
Pimpri, Pune -18.
155. Ramdas Ranganath Salve
PCMC Colony, Bldg. No.7, R.No.16,
Nigadi, Pune.
156 Lowrence Bhanudas Gaikwad,
Near Shinde Vit-bhatti, Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
157. Balaram Shankar Mergu,
Dattoba Landge Chawl, Kasarwadi, Pune - 37.
158. Sanjay Dattatraya Rakshe,
Dattoba Landge Chawl, Kasarwadi, Pune – 37.
159 Ramdas Dattu Landge,
Gawali Matha, M.1.D.C., Bhosari, Pune - 26.
160. Santosh Janba Karkude,
Infront of Rashtraprem Vyayam Shala,
Nooru Mohalla, Dighi Road, Pune - 39.
161. Nandu Gangaram Gawhane,
Century Enka Colony, Bhosari, Pune -39.
katkam Page No. 37

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 38 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

162. Trimbak Bhagwat Toke
Dighi Road, Near Tulai Mandir,
Bhosari, Pune-411039. (Deceased)
163. Bhaskar Bhaurao Thasal
Post Road, West Pandav Nagar,
Near Dr. Deokar, Bhosari, Pune 39.
164. Sunil Diwaki Borge,
Dighi Road, Bhosari, Pune -39.
165. Madhukar Damodar Shinde,
Gawhane Vasi, P.C.M.C. Chowk,
Bhosari. Pune.
166. Sanjay Bhikaji Jadhav,
Saint Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 18.
167. Sunil Sudhakar Kudchikar,
Saint Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 18.
168. Somnath Sawalaram Jadhav,
Jai Maharashtra Chowk, Alandi Road,
Bhosari (East), Pune.
169. Sunil Raghunath Bhosale,
Gule Vasti, Bhosari, Pune -39.
170. Sanjay Tulshiram Landge,
Landewadi, Bhosari, Pune - 18.
171. Ramesh Dnyanu Kamble,
172 Laxman Tukaram Nalawade,
Vijay Prabha Hsg. Soc., Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune -18.
katkam Page No. 38

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 39 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

173. Raju Baban Dhasal,
Khandobamal, Kisan Shinde Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune-39.
174. Kundan Vitthal Nikam,
Popat Tapkir Chawl,
Kasarwadi, Pune - 34.
175. Shambhaji Sopan Shinde,
Landewadi, Vitthal Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune-39.
176. Balu Dynanoba Dolas,
P.M.T. Chowk, Ashoknagar,
Bhosari, Pune-39.
177. Santosh Jagannath More
Baba Landge chawl, Dhaadevasti,
Bosari 39.
178 Vishwanath Manjaba Dhude,
Dhavde wasti, Bhosari, Pune - 39.
179. Satosh Baburao Gawhane
P.M.T. Chawk, Gaehane Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune 39.
180. Suresh Dagdu Pawar
Landewadi, Vitthalnagar, Bhosari, Pune – 39.
181 Hanumanta Marappa Kale,
Sanjay Nagar, Phugewadi, Pune – 1 2.
182. Madhu Gurapapa Shinde
Vijayprabha Housing Soc.,
Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 18
183. Datta Devman Kachi,
Sanjaynagar, Phugewadi, Pune - 12.
katkam Page No. 39

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 40 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

184. Ashok Ramaswami Takale,
Nehrunagar Zopadpatti, Pimipri, Pune 18.
185. Dinkar Sandipan Bhadge,
Akurdi Datawadi Devi Niwas
186 Ravindrasingh Japansingh Bhat,
Bhatnagar, Poonarvasan Imarat No. 5,
Room No. 21, Pimpri, Pune.
187. Sunil Namdev Kamble,
10/111 H.I.G., Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.
188. Shuddhodhan Popat Chavan,
At Post - Dehugaon, Tal - Haveli, Dist – Pune.
189. Vilas Goruba Sonawane,
Bhagatwasti, Hanuman Nagar, Bhosari, Pune -39.
190. Vijay Sadhu Daundankar,
Vijayprabha Housing Society, Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
191. Dashrath Bhima Gunjal,
Gunjal Chawl, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune 18.
192. Balu Kondiba Salve,
1041, Navni, Nanapeth, Pune - 12.
193. Kailash Bapu Kamble,
Landge Wasti, Kasarwadi, Pune.
194. Sukhadev Jaywant Phuge,
Alandi Road, Lalabahadur Shastri Chowk,
Behind Dhankawade Chawl, Bhosari Pune-39.
katkam Page No. 40

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 41 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

195. Bapu Sahebrao Adiwale,
Bhagatwasti, Bhosari, Pune-39.
196. Dynaneshwar Narayan Mate,
Phugewadi, Phanchagewada, Pune - 12.
197. Sanjay Namdev Khillare,
Jaywant Barne Chawl,
Saint Dnyneshwar Nagar,
Dhergaon, Pune -33.
198. Subhash Yallappa Chbukswar,
Kalbhor Nagar, Near Gupta Hotel,
Chinchwad, Pune - 19.
199. Babasaheb Bharat Londhe,
Behind Elpro Company,
Vijaynagar, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
200. Satish Nagnatha Chandanshive
201 Vijay Shekha Kamble
202. Sunil Baban Kunjeer,
Baudhnagar, Pimpri River Road, Bldg. No. 16,
Room No. 1, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
203 Prakash Maruti Ghubade,
Laltopinagar, Morwadi, Pimpri, Pune 18.
204 Suryakant Babanrao Mohite,
Behind Bhairavnath Mandir,
Sathe Chowk, Chinchwad, Pune - 19.
205 Sopan Dadu Londhe,
Tanajiraonagar Londhe Chawl,
Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
katkam Page No. 41

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 42 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

206 Suresh Kisan Pallari,
Anand Nagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune-19.
207 Pathan Lature Bothe,
Indiranagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune -19.
208. Vijay Dhondu Tambe,
Baudhnagar, River Road,
Bldg. No. 16, Room No. 33, Pimpri Pune.
209 Raju Ramdas Waghmare,
Udyog Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune - 33.
210 Sanjay Baban Gadkari,
Near Bhairavnath Mandir,
Chinchwadgaon, Pune -33.
211 Malhari Balu Kamble,
Anandnagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune - 19.
212 Vishnu Rambhau Adagale,
Londhe Chawl, Balajinagar,
Chinchwad, Pune-33.
213 Sanjay Gangaram Jadhav,
Infront of Vijaynagar Elpro Company,
Chinchwad village, Pune 33.
214. Shantaram Shetiba Pawar,
Indiranagar, Chinchwad Station, Pune - 19.
215 Balasaheb Shripadrao Gadkari,
Gawade Bhoirali, Chinchwad village, Pune 33.
216 Narayan Suryaji Jadhav
Behind Diluxe Talkies,
Shashri Nagar,
Behind Jai Hind School, Pimpri Camp
Pimpri, Pune – 17.
katkam Page No. 42

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 43 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

217. Ashok Jagdev Jadhav,
Morwadi, Pimpri, Pune 18.
218 Narayan Rambhau Ujagare
Bhat Nagar,
Bldg. No.-13, Pimpri, Pune 17.
219. Anant Sahdeo Gotal,
Dhawtevasti, Shivganesh Nagar,
Mamasaheb Lazndge Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune 39.
220 Sanjay Eknath Pansare,
Dhawadevasti, Baba Landge Chawl,
Bhosari, Pune -39.
221 Kakuram Balbhim Kengar,
Kengar Niwas, Nehrunagar,
Pimpri, Pune - 18.
222. Sameer Namdev Dolas
Saint Tukaram Nazgar,
Bhosari, Pune - 39.
223 Ramdas Pundlik Bawale,
Near Pathare Landge Talim
224 Raju Poojaji Wadagale,
Alandi Road, At. Post. Moshi,
Tal-Haveli, Dist. Pune.
225 Santosh Damodar Landge
Near Pathare Landge Talim,
Bhosari, Pune – 39.
226 Pandarinath Kashinath Shinde
Baudh Nagar, Pimpri, Pune – 17.
katkam Page No. 43

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 44 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

227. Sarjerao Honaji Tuskmare,
Baudhnagar, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
228 Jitendra Kashinath Dakhale,
Kalewadi, Tapkir Nagar,
Zopadpatti, Pune 17.
229. Adwin Lajresh John
Adarshnagar, Kalewadi, Pune – 17.
230 Sanjay Narayan Patil,
Shitole Nagar, Sanghvi, Pune - 27.
231. Subhash Tukaram Goykar,
Kalewadi Pawananagar, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
232, Chandrakant Yallappa Kamble,
Priyadarshani Nagar, Sanghvi, Pune – 27.
233 Basavraj Choudappa Gaikwad
Ajantha Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune – 19.
234 Balu Nagu Danke,
Pimpri River Road, Baudhanagar,
Build. No. 16, Room No.-20,
Pimpri, Pune - 17.
235. Madhukar Vidhyanath Owhai
Adarshnagar, Pimpri – 17.
236 Anand Ramprasad Polar,
Century Chawl, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
237. Sanjay Nivruti Gholap
Gurudatta Nagar, Nanekar Chawl,
Pimpri, Pune - 18.
katkam Page No. 44

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 45 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

238. Devidas Dhanaji Bhosale,
Ramabainagar, Pimpri, Pune - 17.
239. Kishor Dattatray Khengare,
Near Pagechi Talim, Chinchwad village,
Pune 33.
240. Datta Laxman Adagale,
Shastrinagar, Pimpri, Pune 411017
241. Mariappa Hanuimanta Dhole
Anandnagar, Chinchwad Station
Pune 19.
242 Navnath Bhanudas Kharat,
Baudhanagar, Building No. 15, Room No. 24,
Pimpri, Pune-17.
243. Subhash Shekhlal Bhat,
Bhatnagar, Building No.7,
Room No.26, Pimpri – 17.
244 Sitaram Dattu Parkhe,
Morwadi, Pimpri, Pune - 18.
245. Vishwas Laxman Tapkir
Pimpri village, Shinde Ali,
Kalapure Wada, Pune - 411 017.
246 Ramesh Mahadeo Rankhambe,
Shastri Nagar, Pimprigaon, Pune - 17
247. Malakappa Nagppa Koli,
Mahatma Phule Nagar,
Bhosari, M.ID.C., Pune-26.
248. Shakeel Usman Shaikh,
Pimpale Nilakh, Aundh Camp,
Pune-27.
katkam Page No. 45

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 46 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

249. Mukund Manjaba londhare
Pimpale Nilakh, Sutarali, Pune – 27.
250 Ramesh Piraji Bhise,
Pimple Saudagar, Tal. - Haveli, Dist.- Pune 27.
251. Santosh Manohar Pawar,
Mal Ali, Pimpri Village, Pune – 17. ....Respondents
-----------
Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kedar B. Dighe,
Mr. Manoj Badgujar and Ms. Sneha Bhange for the Petitioners in WP 1860 of
2024.
Mr. G.H. Keluskar, for Petitioner in WP 4931 of 2003 .
Mr. Nitin Kulkarni with Mr. Avinash Belge for Respondents in both Petitions.
__________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 08 AUGUST 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON: 20 AUGUST 2024.
J U D G M E N T
1 Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation-Petitioner is aggrieved by
orders passed by Industrial Court, Pune, in entertaining Complaint (ULP)
No.139 of 1999 filed on behalf of persons, whom it brands as ‘contractors’, by
rejecting the preliminary objection of maintainability vide order dated 22
November 2002. It is also aggrieved by the final judgment and order dated 30
January 2023 allowing the Complaint and declaring that the Complainants are
employees of the Petitioner-Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
(PCMC). The Industrial Court has further directed the Petitioner-PCMC to
absorb Complainants in service from the dates of their initial joining alongwith
katkam Page No. 46

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 47 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

arrears of wages on par with its permanent employees doing similar work.
Accordingly, Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003 is filed challenging the order on
preliminary issue dated 22 November 2002 whereas Writ Petition No.1860 of
2024 is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 30 January 2023.
2 Narration of few basic facts leading to filing the Petitions would be
necessary. Petitioner is a Municipal Corporation established under the
provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MMC Act).
Petitioner-PCMC initiated Swachata Sankalp Mohim (cleanliness drive),
which included inter alia public awareness programme to educate citizens
about importance of cleanliness, door to door collection of solid waste etc. It
appears that a Resolution was adopted by the Standing Committee of
Petitioner-PCMC on 2 September 1997 on the basis of proposal of Municipal
Commissioner dated 26 August 1997 to engage either one or two contractors
in each Ward without inviting tenders for collection of garbage by use of push-
cart and accumulating the same in Municipal Waste Box. It was decided to pay
consolidated amount of Rs.1,800/- per month per contractor for performing
such work. The Resolution contemplated either continuation of earlier
contractors or to engage willing persons in the Ward to be engaged as a new
contractor. It appears that on the basis of Resolution adopted by the Standing
Committee on 2 September 1997,, contracts were issued to various persons.
One such contract is placed on record which was issued on 3 August 1998, by
which Shri. Laxman Vidurath Gaikwad was granted contract of collection of
garbage by use of push-cart for the period from 4 September 1998 to 31
August 1998 on terms and conditions specified therein.
katkam Page No. 47

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 48 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

3 Mahapalika and Parivahan Kamgar Aghadi, Pimpri-Chinchwad filed
Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 before Industrial Court, Pune, on behalf of
about 301 such persons, who were allotted work of collection of garbage
through push-carts by the Petitioner-PCMC. The Union claimed that the said
persons were actually employees of the Petitioner-PCMC. and the entire
arrangement was nothing but a camouflage designed to avoid the
responsibility arising under labour legislations. The arrangement of issuing
contracts was thus branded as sham and a declaration was sought in the
Complaint that 301 workers included in Annexure-P2 the Complaint be
declared as direct workers of Petitioner-PCMC. Further relief for making all
the workers permanent from the dates of joining duties alongwith wages on
par with permanent workers was also sought.
4 Petitioner-PCMC appeared in the Complaint and filed its Written
Statement. Additionally, Petitioner-PCMC also filed application for decision of
issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and sought dismissal of the Complaint
on the ground that the Industrial Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain
Complaint filed under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act)
seeking declaration that the contract is sham and bogus. The Petitioner-PCMC
contended that in the light of dispute about existence of employer-employee
relationship, Complaint filed under MRTU and PULP Act fell outside
jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
5 Industrial Court however proceeded to reject the application filed by
Petitioner-PCMC raising preliminary issue of jurisdiction and held that the
katkam Page No. 48

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 49 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Complaint filed by the Union was maintainable by its order dated 22
November 2002. Petitioner-PCMC has filed Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003
challenging the order on preliminary issue dated 22 November 2002. This
Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) of the Petition and
stayed further proceedings of Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 pending
before Industrial Court by its order dated 28 July 2003. Writ Petition
No.4931 of 2003 came to be admitted by this Court by order dated 30 April
2004 continuing the interim relief of stay on proceedings in Complaint (ULP)
No.139 of 1999. It appears that the Union filed Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp)
No.21629 of 2004 before Division Bench, which came to be dismissed by
order dated 3 September 2004. However, the learned Single Judge was
requested to decide the Petition expeditiously.
6 When Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003 came up for hearing before this
Court on 10 July 2014, a detailed order came to be passed observing that a
Reference was pending before Larger Bench of the Apex Court to resolve
difference of opinion in various decisions relating to maintainability of
Complaint under MRTU & PULP Act where existence of employer-employee
relationship was disputed. Therefore, by order dated 10 July 2014, this Court
directed that it would be appropriate to await decision of the Reference
pending before the Apex Court. This is how the Petition remained pending.
Order dated 10 July 2014 was challenged by Union alongwith the workers, it
was representing, before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition
(C) No.12804 of 2015. It appears that leave was granted in the said SLP by
order dated 12 February 2019 and the same was registered as Civil Appeal
katkam Page No. 49

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 50 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

No.1673 of 2019. So far as the Reference made to the Larger Bench of the
Apex Court was concerned, which was noticed by this Court in order dated 10
July 2014, the Supreme Court passed order dated 17 July 2019 in Raymond
1
Ltd. Anr. vs. Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare & another that no specific question
was framed for answer by the Larger Bench. The Apex Court considered Full
Bench decision of this Court in Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare & Anr. vs.
2
Raymond Woollen Mills Limited & Ors. and held that the position of law
expounded in paragraph 19 of the Full Bench Judgment lays down correct
position of law.
7 It appears that without making any application to this Court for
vacation of interim order which had stayed the proceedings of Complaint
(ULP) No.139 of 1999, an application was moved before the Industrial Court
on 12 January 2021 on behalf of Complainants stating that the reference in
Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare (supra) was decided by the Apex Court and that
therefore there was no stay to the further proceedings in the Complaint (ULP)
No.139 of 1999. It appears that advocate for Petitioner-PCMC agreed with the
said position and on account of such joint representation made to the
Industrial Court, it proceeded to decide Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 on
merits. The Complaint has been allowed by the Industrial Court vide
judgment and order dated 30 January 2023 declaring that Complainants are
employees of Petitioner-PCMC and that they are entitled for absorption in
service of Petitioner-PCMC from the dates of joining of service. The
Complainants are also held to be entitled for benefit of arrears of wages on par
1 (Civil Appeal No.5077 of 2006)
2 2005 (4) Mh.L.J 1045
katkam Page No. 50

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 51 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

with regular employees of the Petitioner-PCMC from the dates of their joining
service. In respect of Complainants who passed away during pendency of the
Complaint, direction is given for payment of arrears of wages to their legal
heirs from the dates of joining till the dates of their death. The final judgment
and order dated 30 January 2023 is subject matter of challenge in Writ
Petition No.4931 of 2003. To complete the narration of fact, Civil Appeal
No.1673 of 2019 has been withdrawn by the Complainants on 21 August
2023.
8 Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned senior advocate appearing for Petitioner-
PCMC would submit that the Industrial Court has proceeded to decide
Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 in violation of interim order dated 30 April
2004 passed by this Court while admitting Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003.
That though said interim order continuous to operate till date and has not
been modified or vacated by this Court, Complainants persuaded the
Industrial Court to proceed ahead with the decision of the Complaint on a
misrepresentation that the stay granted by this Court had been vacated. That
thus the Complaint is decided by passing final judgment and order dated 30
January 2023 in violation of interim order granted by this Court.
9 Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that the Complaint filed by
Respondents before the Industrial Court under provisions of section 28 of the
MRTU & PULP Act was not maintainable in view of specific declarations
sought by them about existence of employer-employee relationship as well as
abolition of contracts executed with them. That seeking a declaration that
katkam Page No. 51

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 52 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Respondents are direct workers of Petitioner-PCMC contains an implicit
admission about existence of dispute about employer-employee relationship.
He would take me through the averments in the Complaint to demonstrate
that the entire Complaint was full of pleadings in support of declaration that
the contract executed by Petitioner-PCMC is sham and camouflaged. He
would also take me through one of the letters granting contract to demonstrate
that the said letter cannot be construed to mean an appointment order. That
the said letter did not amount to employment of the person concerned into the
services of the Petitioner-PCMC. He would submit that contracts were
awarded to various persons for door-to-door collection of garbage through
push-carts with a view to implement the cleanliness drive undertaken by the
Petitioner-PCMC on experimental basis. That Petitioner-PCMC was not
under any statutory obligations to collect municipal solid waste from the doors
of the citizens and it was thus not a part of statutory duty of the Petitioner-
PCMC to employ any staff for door-to-door collection of garbage at the
relevant time. That the Municipal Solid Waste Rules were implemented much
later in the year 2016 and that therefore resolutions adopted Standing
Committee of the Petitioner-PCMC, who commenced the scheme of door-to-
door collection of Municipal solid waste on experimental basis by issuing
contracts cannot be confused with effecting appointments in the services of the
Petitioner-PCMC. He would submit that appointment on establishment of a
Municipal Corporation cannot be treated on par with appointment with a
private employer. That there is a statutory framework for effecting
appointments on the establishment of the Municipal Corporation and no
appointment on its establishment can be effected without following a
katkam Page No. 52

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 53 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

procedure prescribed for making such appointments. That therefore contracts
effected with private contractors for door-to-door collection of municipal solid
waste can never be treated as appointments made on the establishment of the
Petitioner-PCMC.
10 Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that being fully aware of the
position that the concerned persons were mere contractors, they were required
to raise a contention that the contracts awarded by the Petitioner-PCMC in
their favour were sham and bogus. That the concerned persons were fully
aware that without seeking a declaration of contract being sham and bogus, it
was impossible to establish direct employer-employee relationship with the
Petitioner-PCMC and this is the reason why those contractors approached the
Industrial Court to seek a declaration of contract being sham and bogus. In the
light of the dispute raised by the Complainants themselves about existence of
employer employee relationship, the Complaint was clearly outside the
jurisdiction of Industrial Court. He would submit that the position of law
about lack of jurisdiction of Industrial Court to entertain Complaint under
MRTU & PULP Act in the light of existence of dispute about employer-
employee relationship is well settled by the judgments of the Apex Court in
3
Cipla Limited vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors. and Sarva
Shramik Sangh vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Company Limited and
4
others . That this position is also reiterated by Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Asia Foundation and Construction Limited Nagpur vs. Engineering
5
Kamgar Sanghatana, Nagpur and another .
3 2001 (3) SCC 101
4 2003 (10) SCC 455
5 2016 (2) MhLJ 406.
katkam Page No. 53

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 54 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

11 Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that the Industrial Court has
erred in assuming jurisdiction and in rejecting the preliminary objection about
maintainability of the Complaint by holding that there is no intermediate
contractor between Complainants and Petitioner-PCMC or that the
Complainants are directly working with the Petitioner-PCMC. He would
submit that what is important is the factum of award of contracts to the
concerned Complainants and presence/absence of an intermediate contractor
would make no difference so long as there is a dispute about existence of
employer employee relationship. That this is not a case where existence of
employer-employee relationship is indisputable as erroneously held by the
Industrial Court in order dated 22 November 2002. The true ratio of the
judgments of the Apex Court in Cipla Limited (supra) and Sarva Shramik
Sangh (supra) is that in every case where there is dispute about employer
employee relationship, jurisdiction of Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP
Act is barred. Mr. Kumbhakoni would therefore submit that since the
Complaint itself was not maintainable, the final judgment and order dated 30
January 2023 passed by the Industrial Court is without jurisdiction and hence
a nullity.
12 Without prejudice to the contentions about maintainability of the
Complaint and jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, Mr. Kumbhakoni would
further submit that none of the six tests laid down by the Apex Court in
6
Balwant Rai Saluja and another vs. Air India Limited and others , are fulfilled
in the present case. That the said six tests are required to be determined having
6 2014 (9) SCC 407
katkam Page No. 54

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 55 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

regard to the position that engagements of the Complainants are made by
Zonal Officers which cannot be treated as appointments made by the
Petitioner-PCMC or by its Commissioner. That the Zonal Officers are not
empowered under the provisions of MMC Act to make any engagements or
appointments of Municipal servants that therefore the first test of ‘ who
appoints ?’ fails in the present case. That the second test of ‘ who pays the
salary/remuneration ’ also fails as no salary is paid to the Complainants and
what was paid at that time was only contract price for door-to-door collection
of garbage at fixed rate. That the third test of ‘ who has authority to dismiss ’
again fails in the present case as there is nothing on record to indicate that the
Petitioner-PCMC took any decision about discontinuation of any individual
contractor. That it is borne out in evidence and in fact an admission in the
Complaint itself that Complainants worked at the mercy of the Zonal Officers
thereby indicating that the Petitioner-PCMC did not play any role in respect of
discontinuation of contracts of any individual contractor. That fourth test of
‘ who can take disciplinary action ’ also fails in the present case as there was no
question of taking any disciplinary action against contractors who were never
treated as Municipal servants in any manner. That the fifth test of ‘ whether
there is continuity of service ’ again does not get fulfilled in the present case as
this is not a case where same employee is continued through different
contractors and that the contract of each individual was distinct. That the sixth
test of ‘ extent of control and supervision ’ also does not get fulfilled in the
present case as there is no evidence on record to prove that the Petitioner-
PCMC ever supervised or controlled work of individual contract. Mr.
Kumbhakoni would therefore submit that even if it is assumed that the
katkam Page No. 55

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 56 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Industrial Court had jurisdiction to go into the issue of existence of employer-
employee relationship, none of the six tests prescribed in the Apex Court
judgment of Balwant Rai Saluja (supra) get fulfilled in the present case.
13 Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that Complainants otherwise
did not have any right to seek absorption in the Municipal service, mere
completion of 240 days of service cannot be a ground for grant of relief of
absorption in service. That the Industrial Court has erred in relying on letters
and certificates issued during pendency of proceedings for the purpose of
inferring that Complainants are direct workers of the Petitioner-PCMC. That
letters for admission of children of concerned Complainants in schools does
not create employer-employee relationship. That the Industrial Court has
undertaken exercise of appreciation of evidence to decide employer-employee
relationship, which is frowned upon by Division Bench of this Court in Asia
Foundation and Construction Limited Nagpur (supra). That the Industrial
Court had erroneously relied upon the alleged proposals sent by Petitioner-
PCMC to the State Government, which are ultimately not accepted by the
State Government. In fact, sending of such proposals clearly show that
Complainants are not employees of Petitioner-PCMC. The proposals merely
proposed their treatment as employees, which have been rejected by the State
Government. So far as reliance by the Industrial Court on provisions of
sections 7 and 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 is concerned, Mr. Kumbhakoni would submit that even if it is treated
that the contracts executed with the Complainants suffered from any infirmity,
the same would not convert contracts into employment. Mr. Kumbhakoni
katkam Page No. 56

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 57 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

would pray for setting aside both orders on preliminary issues as well as the
final judgment and order dated 30 January 2023.
14 The Petitions are opposed by Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondents/original Complainants. 15So far as the
Industrial Court proceeding to decide the Complaint despite non-vacation of
interim order by this Court is concerned, Mr. Kulkarni would submit both the
Complainants as well as Petitioner-PCMC were of unanimous opinion that on
account of disposal of reference by the Apex Court in Tukaram Tanaji
Mandhare (supra) the interim order had come to an end and that therefore the
Industrial Court cannot really be faulted for proceeding to decide the
Complaint finally.
15. He would rely upon definition of the term “workman” under
section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) in support of his
contention that every person engaged to perform the work of manual or
unskilled or skilled work for hire or reward is to be treated as workman. That it
is demonstrably proved before the Industrial Court that Petitioner-PCMC
performs such work for Municipal Corporation for hire or reward. That
definition of the term “wages” under section 2(rr) of the ID Act again covers
remuneration paid in terms of employment. That therefore the remuneration
paid to the Complainants directly by the Petitioner-PCMC fits into the
definition of the term ‘wages’ under the ID Act. That nature of work
performed by Respondents does not differ or depend upon the nomenclature
katkam Page No. 57

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 58 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

used by Petitioner-PCMC for the arrangement and ultimately it is proved that
Respondents work for Petitioner-PCMC. He would take me through
definition of the term “contractor” under the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act to demonstrate that Respondents do not fit into the definition
of the said term. That no license is obtained by Respondents who are acting as
contractors of Petitioner-PCMC and it has also been an admitted position that
engagement of the Respondents is not through any contractor. That therefore,
relationship between Petitioner-PCMC and Respondents is not even a matter
of debate. Mr. Kulkarni would further submit that initial engagements of all
Complainants are clearly referable to the Standing Committee Resolution.
That thus decision to engage them is taken by Petitioner-PCMC and not by
Zonal Officers as sought to be contended by Petitioner-PCMC. That Ward
Officers were only delegated the power of issuing letters and it cannot be said
that they exercised any independent authority to make engagements. He
would take me through various findings recorded by the Industrial Court on
preliminary issue to demonstrate that absence of any intermediate contractor
has rightly been taken into consideration that the Industrial Court to infer
direct relationship between the Complainants and Petitioner-PCMC. That
several documents indicating direct engagements of Complainants as well as
treating them as direct employees by Petitioner-PCMC have been considered
by the Industrial Court. That it has been conclusively proved that direct
payments are made to Complainants based on recording of their attendance in
muster. That supervision by Municipal Officers is also proved. That
Complainants perform same job as of regular sweepers. That there are 1521
sanctioned posts of sweepers out of which 468 were lying vacant at the time of
katkam Page No. 58

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 59 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

decision of the Complaint. He would therefore submit that the order passed by
the Industrial Court directing absorption of Complainants in service does not
warrant any interference. He would pray for dismissal of both the Petitions.
16 Rival contentions of parties now fall for Court’s determination.
17 Before proceeding to decide the merits of the dispute, it would be first
necessary to decide the issue of propriety on the part of the industrial Court in
deciding the Complaint even though the stay order granted by this Court was
never vacated. There are no two opinions on the fact that the stay order
granted by this Court was not vacated and continued to operate and, in that
sense, the Industrial Court could not have decided the Complaint during
operation of stay order of this Court. to this extent, there is impropriety on the
part of the Industrial Court. It however appears that the both the sides are
responsible for this misadventure on Court’s part, as they jointly agreed before
the Court that the stay order no longer continued after decision of reference by
the larger Bench of the Apex Court. Therefore though Mr. Kumbhakoni is
right in contending that the Industrial Court could not have decided the
Compliant during pendency of Writ Petition No. 4931 of 2003, Petitioner-
PCMC has to share the blame in agreeing with the counsel for complainants
that the stay order of this court no longer operated. Also of relevance is the fact
that the Compliant was pending since the year 1999 and somehow the same
has been finally decided, albeit with impropriety. Now both the petitions
challenging the order on preliminary issue as well as the final judgment and
order are taken up for hearing and are being decided by this common
katkam Page No. 59

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 60 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

judgment. Therefore, instead of attempting to correct the impropriety on the
part of the Industrial Court by remanding the Complaint for fresh decision by
first deciding the issue of maintainability, it would be appropriate to proceed
ahead by recording this Court’s displeasure on the conduct of both the parties
in misrepresenting the Industrial Court.
18. The main objection raised by Petitioner-PCMC is about maintainability
of the Complaint and jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain the
same. Before proceeding to examine the exact nature of grievance raised in the
Complaint, it would be apposite to first deal with the position of law about
jurisdiction of Industrial Court under provisions of MRTU & PULP Act.
MRTU & PULP Act essentially consists of two parts viz. (i) recognition of
trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining on behalf of workmen and
(ii) prevention of unfair labour practices on the part of employers, trade unions
and employees. Section 27 of the MRTU & PULP Act provides that no
employer or union and no employee shall engage in any unfair labour practice.
Thus, the Act essentially governs relationship between employer and
employees. Section 26 of the Act provides that ‘unfair labour practices’ means
any of the practices listed in Schedule II, III and IV. Schedule II lists unfair
labour practices on the part of employees, Scheduled III lists unfair labour
practices on the part of trade unions and Schedule IV lists general unfair
labour practices on the part of employers. It is on account of governance of
relationship between employers and employees by the MRTU & PULP Act
that existence of employer-employee relationship becomes sine qua non for
invocation of jurisdiction under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act for
katkam Page No. 60

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 61 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

filing a Compliant relating to any unfair labour practice. If there is no
employer-employee relationship, the allegation of commission of unfair labour
practice under Schedule II and Schedule IV cannot be raised because such
unfair labour practices necessarily need to be alleged by an employee against
his/her employer. This is a reason why the law now is fairly well settled that
absence of employer-employee relationship ousts jurisdiction of Industrial
Court to entertain any Complaint alleging unfair labour practices under
MRTU & PULP Act. There are catena of judgments on this issue and a quick
reference in this regard can be made to the three judgments. In Cipla Limited
(supra). It is held by the Apex Court in paragraph 8 and 11 as under:
8. But one thing is clear - if the employees are working under a contract covered by the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act then it is clear that the Labour Court or the
industrial adjudicating authorities cannot have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter as it
falls within the province of an appropriate Government to abolish the same. If the case put
forth by the workmen is that they have been directly employed by the appellant Company
but the contract itself is a camouflage and, therefore, needs to be adjudicated is a matter
which can be gone into by appropriate Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. Such question
cannot be examined by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court constituted under the Act.
The object of the enactment is, amongst other aspects, enforcing provisions relating to
unfair labour practices. If that is so, unless it is undisputed or indisputable that there is
employer-employee relationship between the parties, the question of unfair practice cannot
be inquired into at all. The respondent Union came to the Labour Court with a complaint
that the workmen are engaged by the appellant through the contractor and though that is
ostensible relationship the true relationship is one of master and servant between the
appellant and the workmen in question. By this process, workmen repudiate their
relationship with the contractor under whom they are employed but claim relationship of an
employee under the appellant. That exercise of repudiation of the contract with one and
establishment of a legal relationship with another can be done only in a regular Industrial
Tribunal/Court under the ID Act.”
11. Next decision relied upon by Shri Singhvi is Central Bank of India c Ltd. v. P.S.
Rajagopalans , AIR 1964 SC 743: (1964) 3 SCR 140 to contend that even in cases arising
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act the scope, though very limited, certain
incidental questions can be gone into like a claim for special allowance for operating adding
machine which may not be based on the Sastry Award made under the provisions of
Chapter V-A. The learned counsel pointed out that in the event we were to hold that it is
katkam Page No. 61

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 62 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

only in clear cases or undisputed cases the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal under
the Act can examine the complaints made thereunder, the whole provision would be
rendered otiose and in each of those cases provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations
Act, 1946 or the Industrial Disputes Act will have to be invoked. We are afraid that this
argument cannot be sustained for the fact that even in respect of claims arising under
Section 33-C(2) appropriate dispute can be raised in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act and that has not been the position in the present case. Nor can we say that
even in cases where employer-employee relationship is undisputed or indisputably referring
to the history of relationship between the parties, dispute can be settled and not in a case of
the present nature where it is clear that the workmen are working under a contract. But it is
only a veil and that will have to be lifted to establish the relationship between the parties.
That exercise, we are afraid, can also be done by the Industrial Tribunal under the Bombay
Industrial Relations Act, 1946 or under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, we are afraid
that the contention advanced very ably by Shri Singhvi on behalf of the respondents cannot
be accepted. Therefore, we hold that the High Court went far beyond the scope of the
provisions of the Act and did not correctly understand the decisions of this Court in Gujarat
Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, (1995) 5 SCC 27 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 1166 and General Labour Union (Red Flag) v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico
Printing Co. Ltd ., (1995)5 SCC175 : 1995 SCC (L&S)372. The correct interpretation of
these decisions will lead to the result, which we have stated in the course of this order.”
(emphasis added)
19 In Sarva Shramik Sangh (supra) it was urged before the Apex Court that
the law expounded in previous judgments including Cipla Ltd. needed a fresh
look. The Apex Court has noted the submission on behalf of Appellants in
paragraphs 2 and 4 of the judgment and has thereafter held in paragraphs 15
and 24 as under:
2 The appellants contend that the view which was first expressed by this Court in
General Labour Union (Red Flag) vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. and CalicoPrinting Co. Ltd., 1995
Supp (1) SCC 175 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 372 subsequently echoed in many cases including
Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 381 : 2001 sCC (L&S) 436 and
finally in Cipla Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union , (2001) 3 SCC 101 : 2001 SCC
(L&S) 520 is legally unsound and needs a fresh look.
4. According to the appellants a fresh look is necessary in the matter as various
relevant provisions were not kept in view when the above decisions were rendered.
15. Reference has also been made to Sections 27, 28, 29(d) and 32 of the Maharashtra
Act. While Section 27 deals with prohibition on engaging in unfair labour practices, Section
28 empowers filing of a complaint. Any union or an employee or an employer or any
katkam Page No. 62

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 63 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

investigating agency has the locus to file a complaint. Section 29(d) categorises parties on
whom order of the court is binding. Great emphasis was laid on Section 32 of the
Maharashtra Act by the appellant to contend that matters connected with the dispute can be
gone into under the provision. The expression "all matters arising out of” clearly
emphasizes that it has connections, and not that it is the basic issue. There is a gulf of
difference between a basic issue and something connected with or arising out of the
application. In R. v. Basudeva AIR 1950 FC 67 : 51 CrLJ 1011 it was observed that the
connection contemplated must be real and proximate, not far-fetched or problematical. By
no logic can it be a substitute of the other. "In connection with any assessment" [Canada:
Income War Tax Act R.S.C. 1927 (C. 97) S. 66] has been interpreted as "having to do with"
in Nanaino Community Hotel, Re . (1945) 3 DLR 225. The basic question which was also
raised in Cipla case (2001) 3 SCC 101 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 520 relates to the existence of the
relationship, and of any dispute connected with that. For getting protection under the
Maharashtra Act, it has first to be established that the complainant is an employee of a
person under whom he claims to be an employee and against whom he files a complaint. In
other words, the determinative question is, can anybody who is not an "employee" of or
under a person against whom a grievance is sought to be made file a complaint under the
Act and the answer is inevitably "No". The fundamental issue therefore is whether the
complainant is an employee of the person against whom a complaint is made under the
Maharashtra Act and if there is a dispute, he has to establish it, first before the appropriate
forum designated for adjudication of such industrial disputes. Section 32 does not aid the
appellant in the sense that it is not a matter arising out of the application, when the pre-
existing relationship of employer-employee is a must and an essential prerequisite. It is the
core issue on which only the very locus to make a complaint can at all be claimed. A person
who does not answer the description has no legal locus to file a complaint. A jurisdictional
fact is one on the existence or otherwise of which depends assumption or refusal to assume
jurisdiction by a court, tribunal or authority. The said fact has to be established and its
existence proved before a court under the Maharashtra Act can assume jurisdiction of a
particular case. If the complaint is made prima facie accepting existence of the contractor, in
such a case what has to be first established is whether the arrangement or agreement
between the complainant and the contractor is sham or bogus. There is an inherent
admission in such a situation that patently the arrangement is between the complainant and
the contractor and the claim for a new and different relationship itself is a disputed fact. To
put it differently, the complainant seeks for a declaration that such arrangement is not a real
one but something which is a facade. There is no direct agreement between the complainant
and the principal employer and one such is sought to be claimed but not substantiated in
accordance with law. The relief in a sense relates to a legal assumption that the hidden
agreement or arrangement has to be surfaced. Entries 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the
Maharashtra-Act read as follows:
"5. To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits.
6. To employ employees as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries and to continue them as
such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of
permanent employees.
*
katkam Page No. 63

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 64 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

9. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.
10. To indulge in act of force or violence".
24. The common thread passing through all these judgments is that the threshold question
to be decided is whether the industrial dispute could be raised for abolition of the contract
labour system in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Act. What happens to an
employee engaged by the contractor if the contract made is abolished, is not really involved
in the dispute. There can be no quarrel with the proposition as contended by the appellants
that the jurisdiction to decide a matter would essentially depend upon pleadings in the
plaint. But in a case like the present one, where the fundamental fact decides the jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint itself, the position would be slightly different. In order to
entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra Act it has to be established that the claimant
was an employee of the employer against whom complaint is made under the ID Act. When
there is no dispute about sach relationship, as noted in-para 9 of Cipla case the Maharashtra
Act would have full application. When that basic claim is disputed obviously the issue has to
be adjudicated by the forum which is competent to adjudicate. The sine qua non for
application of the concept of unfair labour practice is the existence of a direct relationship of
employer and employee. Until that basic question is decided, the forum recedes to the
background in the sense that first that question has to be got separately adjudicated. Even if
it is accepted for the sake of arguments that two forums are available, the court certainly can
say which is the more appropriate forum to effectively get it adjudicated and that is what has
been precisely said in the three decisions. Once the existence of a contractor is accepted, it
leads to an inevitable conclusion that a relationship exists between the contractor and the
complainant. According to them, the contract was a facade and sham one which has no real
effectiveness. As rightly observed in Cipla case it is the relationship existing by contractual
arrangement which is sought to be abandoned and negated and in its place the
complainant's claim is to the effect that there was in reality a relationship between the
employer and the complainant directly. It is the establishment of the existence of such an
arrangement which decides the jurisdiction. That being the position, Cipla case rightly hold
that an industrial depute has to be raised before the Tribunal under the ID Act to have the
issue relating to actual nature of employment sorted out. That being the position, we find
that there is no scope for reconsidering Cipla case the view which really echoed the one
taken about almost a decade back.”
20 Thus in Sarva Shramik Sangh , the Apex Court held that there was no
necessity of taking a view different from the one taken in various previous
decisions including Cipla Ltd .
21 Division Bench of this Court in Asia Foundation and Construction
Limited Nagpur (supra), while following the ratio in Cipla Ltd and Sarva
katkam Page No. 64

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 65 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Shramik Sangh has in fact gone a step ahead and has held that the Industrial
Court cannot even undertake the exercise of determining employer-employee
relationship for assuming jurisdiction. The judgment authored by His
Lordship Justice B.R. Gavai (as he then was) holds in paragraphs 20, 21, 23
and 26 as under:
20. It could thus clearly be seen that the learned Industrial Court has gone into the exercise
of considering the entire evidence to come to a finding as to whether there existed an
employers-employee relationship between the appellants and the members of the
complainant - Union. With due respect, the said exercise is not permissible while
entertaining the complaint under section 30 of the Act of 1971, as has been held by Their
Lordships of the Apex Court.
21. The perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would reveal that the learned
Single Judge has examined from the aspect, as to whether the findings as recorded by the
learned Single Judge on the basis of evidence recorded before it were perverse or not. It will
be relevant to refer to paragraph No. 12 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as
follow -
"12. These findings reached by the learned Member, Industrial Court are on the
basis of evidence, which is available on record. I perused the entire evidence with
the assistance of both the learned counsel and I find that the findings are not in any
way perverse. The stand of the petitioners - employer that employees are engaged in
loading and unloading work is therefore, apparently incorrect and the conclusion
drawn by the Industrial Court in this respect, is therefore, justified.”
23. It could thus be seen that the learned Single Judge held that the onus was on the
appellants to establish that the employees were performing the work of loading and
unloading and then only the question as to whether the Industrial Court possesses the
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed question of employer and employee relationship
would have arisen. The learned Single Judge held that since the appellants have failed to
prove that the employees were doing the work which is allotted to them by the Contractor,
such a question did not fall for consideration. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that
the findings of the learned Industrial Court are not perverse. The learned Single Judge
further observed that the judgments which are cited by the petitioner in that respect are,
therefore, not relevant. With great respect, we find that the learned Single Judge has,
therefore, also re-appreciated the evidence to decide the question as to whether there existed
an employer - employee relationship or not. In our respectful view, such an enquiry could
not have been embarked upon in the proceeding under section 30 of the Act of 1971.
katkam Page No. 65

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 66 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

26. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Industrial Court as well as the
learned Single Judge have erred in going into the question as to whether the employees,
who were represented by the complainant, were in fact the employees of the appellants or
not. At the costs of repetition we find that such an enquiry was ot permissible in a complaint
under section 30 of the Act of 171.”
22 Thus it has been held by Division Bench of this Court in Asia
Foundation and Construction Limited Nagpur that even an enquiry into
existence of employer-employee relationship by appreciating the evidence is
impermissible once a dispute is created about existence of such relationship.
Thus, existence of employer-employee relationship is a sine qua non for
exercise of jurisdiction to entertain a Complaint of unfair labour practice under
MRTU and PULP Act.
23. Keeping in mind the above broad principle, I now proceed to determine
whether there existed any dispute about employer-employee relationship and
whether Industrial Court could have entertained the Complaint filed by
Respondents. As observed above, the objection raised by Petitioner-PCMC
about maintainability of Complaint and about jurisdiction of Industrial Court
to adjudicate the Complaint has been repelled by order on preliminary issue
dated 22 November 2002, which is subject matter of challenge in Writ
Petition No.4931 of 2003.
24 To understand the exact nature of Complaint filed by Respondents, it
would be necessary to consider the averments made therein. Respondents
averred in their Complaint as under:
katkam Page No. 66

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 67 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

“7) … … ….
The resolutions passed on 02.09 1997 and on 09.06.1998 enclosed
herewith at annexure C & D. In order to implement these resolution
Respondent Nos 4, 5, 6, 7, took the applications from the workers who are
prepared to work @60/- per day or 1800 Rs. Per month and subsequently
appointed the workers listed in the annexure 'B' by appointment letter, which
are enclosed herewith an annexure 'E'. At the instance of Respondent No. 2
and 3, the Respondent No. 4, 5, 6, 7, appointed all these workers and issued
appointment letters under their own signatures. All these workers
individually appointed as contractors but never complied with the section 7
and 12 of the contract labour regulation and abolition Act 1970 and under
Rule 17 and 18 Maharashtra Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition Rules
1971).under these Act and rules the Registration and licence is compulsory
condition for the contractor without this Registration and license contract
labour should be called as labour of principle employer.
… … …
8) Therefore all these appointments naming the workers listed in the
annexure B as Contractor is barred by the law and illegal. All the letters of
appointment naming them as contractors is nothing but a coma fledged act to
evade the responsibilities falling under several labour legislatures and in order
to illegally deprived them of the status of workmen defined in the industrial
disputes Act.
… … …
12) All these conditions of the work bestowed upon the Ghantagadi
workers will Show that in fact they were working as the workers of the
corporation under the disciplining authority of sanitary Inspector etc. and are
compelled to perform the duties of permanent workers alongwith the
restricted duty time. Wages paid to them on daily wage basis and/not as per
the quantum of work without any legal intermediatory contractor and the
duties of these workers being of permanent nature so called contract nothing
but sham contract. Infact the is explicit employment contract exists between
Respondents and the workers listed in the annexure 'E', i.e., that of master
and servant. All these illegal actions on the part of the Respondents in
contravention of the contract labour Act and is a patent unfair labour practice
under item 9 of schedule IV of the M.RT.U & PULP. Act 1971. All these
unfair labour practices are prohibited by law.
… … …”
katkam Page No. 67

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 68 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

14) Cause of action arose when the Respondents engaged themselves into
unfair Labour practice by appointing these workers on the sham contract and
illegally engaging themselves into this unfair labour practices continued to
this date in contravention of the contract labour Act etc. Therefore the cause
of action is continuous as the Respondents have continued to resort to unfair
labour practice date to this date.”
25 The prayers raised in the Complaint were as under:
“a) These abovementioned acts of the Respondents of carrying out the illegal Contract
and appointing the employees on contract where the nature of work is of perennial
continuous in nature which is statutorily binding upon the Respondents be declared
as unfair labour practice under item 9 of schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.
Act 1971.
b) The contract established by the Respondents in contravention of the section 7 & 12
of contract labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act be declared as illegal and be
abolished.
c) The 301 workers (given in annexure 'B') be declared the workers of the Respondent
No.1 and also be directed to make all the workers permanent from the date of
joining of duties with all the arrears of benefits and wages etc. at par with the
permanent workers of the Respondent No. 1 in the same rank.
d) The Respondent No. 1 to 7 be restrained by permanent injunction to not to Engage
in the abovementioned unfair labour practices.
e) The Respondent No. 1 to 7 be restrained from victimizing the workers by
discontinuing them or by any mode of harassment by permanent injunction.
f) Any just and equitable order in the interest of justice and equity may please be
passed.
g) The cost of this application be awarded against Respondent to complainant.
26 First reading of the averments and prayers in the Complaint no doubt
creates a clear impression that the Respondents did seek a specific declaration
that the contracts entered with them by the Petitioner-PCMC are sham and
bogus and that they should be declared as workers of the Petitioner-PCMC by
abolishing the contract system. Apart from the pleadings and prayers in the
Complaint, the direction No. 4 in the operative portion of the final judgment
and order dated 30 January 2023 again indicates that a declaration is given
katkam Page No. 68

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 69 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

that the Complainants are the employees of Petitioner-PCMC. The operative
portion of the Industrial Court’s order reads thus:
“26. In the result, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. The complaint is hereby allowed.
2. It is hereby held and declared that the respondents were indulged in unfair labour
practices under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP ACT, 1971.
3. The respondents are hereby directed to cease and desist from such unfair labour
practices in future.
4. It is hereby declared that the complainants are the employees of the respondent
No.1 corporation.
5. The complainants are entitled to absorption in service of the respondent No.1
Corporation except complainant Nos. 14, 15, 29, 36, 64, 72, 77, 93, 99, 105, 139,
154, 156, 173, 189, 191, 195, 197, 205, and 211 from the date of their joining
service as per appointments at Exh. U-119.
6. The complainants are entitled for benefits in connection with their absorption i.e.
arrears of benefits and wages which are applicable to the permanent employees of
the respondent No.1 corporation doing similar work since the date of their joining
service as per appointments at Exh. U-119.
7. The arrears of benefits and wages are payable to the legal heirs of the complainant
Nos. 14, 15, 29, 36, 64, 72, 77, 93, 99, 105, 139, 154, 156, 173, 189, 191, 195,
197, 205, and 211 from the date of their joining service as per appointments at Exh.
U-119 till the death of the respective complainant Nos. 14, 15, 29, 36, 64, 72, 77,
93, 99, 105, 139, 154, 156, 173, 189, 191, 195, 197, 205, and 211.
8. No order as to the costs.”
27 Petitioner has relied upon one of the letters awarding contract dated 3
August 1998 in the name of Laxman Vidurath Gaikwad. It would be necessary
to reproduce the said letter alongwith its office translation as produced at
Exhibit B-1 to the Petition:
“ vkns’k]
fiaijh fpapoM egkuxjikfydk ^M^ izHkkx dk;kZy;kP;k dk;Z{ks=ke/;s
?kaVkxkMh dpjk xksGk dj.ksps dkeklkBh R;k[kkyhy vVh o ’krhZl cka/khy jkgwu
Bsdsnkjh i/nrhus dke ns.;kr ;sr vkgs-
katkam Page No. 69

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 70 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

v-dz- Bsdsnkjkps ukao izHkkx dzekad
1 y{e.k fonqjFk xk;dokM v’kksd fFk,Vj ifjlj
vVh o ’kFkhZ
1- dkekpk dkyko/kh fn- 4@8@98 rs fn- 31@8@98 vlk jkghy-
2- dkekph osG l- 7 rs 11 o nq- 2 rs 5 v’kh jkghy-
3- vkjksX; fufj{kd usewu nsrhy R;k fBdk.kh o usewu fnysY;k osGsr ?kaVk oktor
xkMhr dpjk xksGk djhr izR;sd ?kjkleks:u fQjkos ykxsy- rlsp usewu fnysY;k
fBdk.khp dpjk [kkyh djkok ykxsy- tek gks.kkjk dpjk iw.kZ {kersus Hkjkok v’kk
fdeku izfrnhuh 20 [ksik iq.kZ djkO;k ykxrhy-
4- lnj dke djrkuk dks.kkl btk >kY;kl R;kl egkikfydk tckcnkj jkg.kkj ukgh-
5- T;k fno’kh dke dj.kkj ukgh R;k fnolkps j- :-100@& izek.ks jDde fcyke/kwu
deh dj.;kr ;sbZy-
6- eqnr laiY;kuarj chy nksu izrhe/;s lknj djkos ykxsy- fcykph jDde
/kukns’kknokjs ikfjr dj.;kr ;sbZy-
7- vkjksX; fufj{kd fdaok ofj"B vf/kdjh ;kaP;k f’kQkj’khUo;sp fcy vnk
dj.ksr ;sbZy-
8- dke lek/kkudkjd ulY;kl fdaok vU; rdzkjh vlY;kl iqoZ lwpuk u nsrk
lnjP;k Bsdsnkjkps dke can dj.ksr ;sbZy-
9- lnj dkeh iqjfoysys lkfgR;k jkstpsjkst O;oLF;hr oki:u la/;kdkGh vkjksX;
dk;kZy;kr tek djkos- eksMrksM >kY;kl nq:Lrh [kPkZ chyke/kwu olwy dj.ksr ;sbZy- ”
( Translation of above Marathi portion)
“Terms and conditions:
1. The duration of work shall be from 4/8/98 to 31/8/98.
2. Work hours shall be 7 am to 11 am and 2 pm to 5 pm.
3. The contractor is required to draw cart, ringing bell, door to door in the area
determined and time indicated by the Health Inspector and collect garbage. The garbage
shall have to be dumped at a place determined by Health Inspector. At least 20 rounds per
day involving garbage collection to the full capacity of the cart shall have to be made.
4. In the event any person is injured while conduction the work, the corporation shall
not be responsible for the same.
5. In the event no work is done on a particular day, a sum of Rs. 100/- shall be
deducted from the bill amount.
6. At the expiry of the contract period, bill in duplicate shall have to be submitted.
The bill amount shall be paid through cheque.
katkam Page No. 70

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 71 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

7. Bills shall be paid as per the recommendation of the Health Inspector or the Higher
Authorities.
8. If the work is not satisfactory or in case there are complaints, the contract of the
contractor shall be terminated without prior notice.
9. The tools provided for the work shall be used properly and deposited with the
Health Department at the end of the day. In case of wear and tear, amount for repair shall be
deducted from the bill amount.”
28 Thus the letters by which the work of garbage collection was allotted to
Respondents again indicate that the work was allotted on contract basis.
29 On the basis of the Contract Award Letter dated 3 August 1998,
pleadings and prayers in the Complaint as well as direction No.4 in the
operative portion of the Industrial Court, Mr. Kumbhakoni has submitted that
a clear dispute about existence of employer-employee relationship was raised
in the Complaint by the Complainants and what they actually sought before
the Industrial Court was conversion of their contracts into employment with
Petitioner-PCMC. He has submitted that the findings recorded by the
Industrial Court also shows that the entire enquiry revolved around the
question whether Respondents were mere contractors or in fact employees of
Petitioner-PCMC. It appears that in paragraph 18 of the Judgment the
Industrial Court, after assessing evidence on record has recorded a finding that
“ thus there is employer employee relationship between Complainants and
Respondent No.1-PCMC ”. According to Mr. Kumbhakoni, there can be no
iota of doubt that the Respondents raised dispute about existence of employer-
employee relationship, they sought to establish such relationship and the
Industrial Court conducted enquiry by appreciation of evidence about
existence of such relationship. According to him such an exercise is clearly
katkam Page No. 71

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 72 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

impermissible in view of law expounded by Division Bench of this Court in
Asia Foundation and Construction Limited Nagpur (supra).
30 While Mr. Kumbhakoni cannot be said to be entirely wrong in
contending that Respondents sought to establish employer-employee
relationship in the Complaint and that the Industrial Court has also conducted
an enquiry into such relationship, the issue remains as to whether such an
enquiry was even necessary to be conducted in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. When workers seek a declaration of contract being sham and
bogus, there is always engagement of workers through a contractor. In such
cases, what is actually sought to be established is that instead of directly
employing the workers, they are deliberately routed through a contractor with
a view to avoid obligations arising out of labour enactments.
31 Conceptually, there is a difference in a case (i) where a contract is
actually awarded to an intermediatory, who then employs workers for
execution of the contract and (ii) where the person engaged for execution of
work, instead of being referred to as workman/employee is deliberately
referred to as a contractor. Again when it comes to availing services of persons
for execution of work on contract basis, there can be three types of
arrangements viz.
(i) where a third party contractor is awarded contract for execution of
particular work and the contractor employees his own manpower, with
or without equipment, to execute that work,
katkam Page No. 72

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 73 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

(ii) where an individual is awarded the work to be performed on
contract basis all by himself, with or without utilizing his own
equipment for execution of work,
(iii) where the employer actually appoints a worker on a fixed term
contract basis where there is a contract of service.
32. There can be no dispute about the third category of contracts, which are
not contracts in real sense and where there is a direct relationship between the
employer and workmen. In that category, the relationship is not disputed, the
worker works for the employer and draws wages, however the appointment is
often made on a project for a fixed period and the terms and conditions are
governed by contract of service and not by rules and regulations applicable to
the establishment. In respect of first category of contracts, there is absolutely
no employer-employee relationship between the parties and in such cases for
establishment such relationship, a declaration of contract being sham and
bogus becomes necessary.
33 Thus, conceptually there is no difficulty in respect of first and third
category of contracts with regard to the issue of jurisdiction of Industrial Court
to entertain a Complaint of unfair labour practice under MRTU and PULP
Act. In first category of contracts, the Complaint under MRTU & PULP Act
cannot be filed and it is necessary for the worker to raise an industrial dispute
and first get employer-employee relationship established in such Reference by
proving that the contract is sham and bogus. In the third category of contracts,
katkam Page No. 73

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 74 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Complaint of unfair labour practice can be filed under MRTU & PULP Act,
since no dispute exists about employer-employee relationship and the
concerned worker can allege unfair labour practice in relation to the services
performed by him/her towards execution of the concerned contract of service.
34 The real difficulty arises in the second category of contracts described
above, which are involved in the present case. It must be observed here that
these categories of contracts are rare, especially in relation to State
Instrumentalities. In private establishments, such individual contracts can be
awarded e.g. awarding of contract for finalization of accounts to an individual
outsider accountant or awarding contract for scanning of documents to an
individual or award of contract to complete specified data entry work of an
establishment. However, in State Instrumentalities such individual contracts
are usually not awarded. The distinguishing feature of such individual contract
is that the contractor concerned is not legally bound to work only for the
establishment concerned and is usually free to take up other assignments as
well since there is no employer-employee relationship. In the present case, it is
sought to be contended on behalf of Petitioner-PCMC that what is awarded to
the Respondents are individual contracts, not creating any employer-employee
relationship. However, on a deeper scrutiny, in arrangement made by
Petitioner-PCMC, to my mind, use of the words ‘contract’ or ‘contractor’
appear to be merely a semantic exercise possibly to avoid any obligation
towards the concerned persons with whom such arrangement is made. This is
clear from following:
katkam Page No. 74

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 75 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

(i) Persons to whom contracts were issued for door to door collection of
Municipal solid waste by use of push-carts ( ghantagadi ) were required to
work under complete supervision and control of the officials of
Petitioner-PCMC.
(ii) The engagement letter specified time when such services were to be
performed i.e. 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
(iii) Letter specified that the work was to be carried out as per
instructions of Health Inspector and the place and time specified by
him.
(iv) Provision was made for deduction of amount on per day basis for
absence,
(v) Letter contained a condition for termination of work for
unsatisfactory work or receipt of complaints.
(vi) Most importantly, entire equipment for performance of the work
was to be provided by Petitioner-PCMC.
(vii) The concept of issuing individual contracts for door-to-door
collection of garbage was commenced with approval of Standing
Committee who adopted resolution on 2 September 1997 for allotment
of work without inviting tenders.
(viii) The resolution provided for payment of fixed amount of Rs.
1,800/- per person. The contract amount was thus supposed to be paid
on per month basis and not based on quantum of garbage handled.
(ix) Attendance of Respondents was marked by the officials of the
Municipal Corporation.
katkam Page No. 75

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 76 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

35 Above are some of the factors as they existed before filing of Complaint
(ULP) No.139 of 1999. After the Complaint was filed and the Respondents
were continued by Petitioner-PCMC, its conduct leaves no manner doubt that
Respondents were treated nothing short of direct its employees. To make
things worse for Petitioner-PCMC, it started correspondence with the State
Government as early as on 11 August 2000 requesting for approval to absorb
Respondents in Municipal service. Five such proposals were sent to the State
Government on 11 August 2000, 23 October 2000, 29 December 2000, 29
December 2003 and 16 November 2005. If Respondents were really
individual contractors, it is unfathomable as to why the Petitioner-PCMC
would seek State Government’s approval for their absorption in Municipal
service.
36 Even in respect of period prior to passing of Order on preliminary issues
on 22 November 2002, the Industrial Court has recorded following findings
with regard to the manner in which Respondents were treated by Petitioner-
PCMC:
“10. The complainants had given notice, Ex. UA- 13 requesting the respondents to
produce documents and application submitted by the complainants appointment
orders issued by the respondents to them resolution dated 26.8.1997; copy of
resolution dated 31.8.1998 muster-roll-cum-wage register of employees for 1997 to
2002. The respondents were directed to produce documents at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4, but
those documents are not produced on record. The alleged contracts executed by the
complainants are not produced on record. On the other hand, the complainants
have produced documents along with Ex. UA-19. By letter dated 1.7.2000.
Additional Commissioner of Respondent No.1 Corpn, directed the Head Master of
Resident Govt. Vidhyaniketan, Jail Road, Yerawada, Pune-6 to admit pupils of
Ghanta Gadi employee Shri Ganesh Baban Pawar-Kum. Tukaram Ganesh Pawar
and Kum. Mukta Ganewh Pawar in third and second standard respectively. A
Certificate has been issued on 22.11.1997 for one Shri Anant Sahadeo Gothal
katkam Page No. 76

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 77 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

certifying that he is working as Ghanta Gadi Karmachari. The certificate is issued by
Sanitary Inspector. By letter dated 17.12.1998. The Municipal Commissioner
directed to provide free medical facilities to Ghanta Gadi employees. Letter dated
11.10.1999 issued by Commissioner of Respondent No.1 Corpn. directing Ghanta
Gadi employees to work on Pulse Polio Campaign on 24.10.1999, 21.11.1999,
19.12.1999 and 23.1.2000. Several documents are produced on record that the
Commissioner Additional Commissioner of Respondent No.1 Corpn. issued
directions to Ghanta Gadi employees. By letter dated 2,6,2002, the Zonal Officer
directed the employees for doing cleaning and sanitary including Ghanta Gadi
employee Shri Santosh Borse. If all the documents produced with list, Ex. UA-19 are
considered, repeatedly directions are issued to Ghanta Gadi employees by different
Officers of Respondent No.1.”
37 The above findings would leave no manner of doubt that right since
beginning, Petitioner-PCMC always treated Respondents as their employees.
Reliance is placed on a document issued as early as on 22 November 1997
certifying that one of the Respondent Shri Anant Sahadeo Gothal was working
as ‘ Ghantagadi Karmachari ’. It is not disputed that Municipal Commissioner
directed provision of free medical facilities to Respondents. They have been
deployed to work on Pulse Polio Campaign implemented by Petitioner-
PCMC. Their children were admitted in schools by treating them as
‘ Ghantagadi employees’ . In addition to collection of door-to-door garbage,
their services were also utilized for other cleaning and sanitary activities. While
Mr. Kumbhakoni has sought to dissuade this Court from relying on the said
actions for twin reasons of (i) above actions being taken by lower-level
Municipal officials, which does not create employer-employee relationship,
and (ii) occasional utilization of Respondents on other works on account of
grant of interim stay by the Industrial Court. However, I am not impressed by
either of the reasons. The entire executive power under the MMC Act vests in
Municipal Commissioner under section 67(3). It is not that the Municipal
katkam Page No. 77

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 78 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Commissioner must always himself exercise such executive powers, Municipal
Commissioner is authorized to delegate his powers and functions to lower-
level officials. It would therefore be too far-fetched to contend that the acts of
Ward Officers or Assistant Commissioners or Superintendents would not bind
Petitioner-PCMC in any manner. In fact, the argument of Zonal Officers/Ward
Officers issuing individual contracts not amounting to making of appointment
by Petitioner-PCMC is also premised similar argument of their acts not
binding Petitioner-PCMC. In my view, this contention sought to be raised on
behalf of Petitioner-PCMC is stated only to be rejected. The concerned Zonal
Officer/Ward Officer has acted as per the decision taken by the Standing
Committee of the Petitioner-PCMC. It is not disputed that the Municipal
Commissioner has issued directions for provision of free medical facilities to
Respondents. They are always treated and described as “ Ghantagadi
Karmachari’ . Except initial engagement letters describing them as ‘Ghantagadi
Contractor’, most of the documents/correspondence uses the word
“ Karmachari ” (employee) to describe them. Thus, Respondents were always
treated as employees and not contractors.
38 Considering the above position, I am of the view that it was not
necessary for Respondents to seek a declaration about existence of employer-
employee relationship on account of the fact that they were always treated as
employees by the Petitioner-PCMC for all practical purposes. As observed
above, declaration of existence of employer-employee relationship becomes
necessary only where workers are employed through intermediate contractor.
When there is no third person available in respect of arrangement between
katkam Page No. 78

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 79 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

entity awarding so called contract and the contractor concerned, there is no
question of seeking any declaration of contract being sham and bogus. This is
because there was already a direct relationship between Petitioner and
Respondents. It is Petitioner who was directly paying them the amounts for
performance of work. It was Petitioner who had power to terminate their so-
called contracts. The directions to work in particular manner and at particular
place was also issued by the municipal officials. Therefore, there was no
arrangement which was required to be declared sham or bogus. In my view,
therefore the usual principle of non-maintainability of Complaint of unfair
labour practice on account of existence of dispute of employer-employee
relationship would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
39 Respondents could have and ought to have simply sought a declaration
for their absorption in Municipal service and in fact such a relief was sought in
second part of prayer clause (c) in the Complaint wherein prayer was made
that “ be directed to make all the workers permanent from the date of joining of
duties….. ” On account of unnecessary debate created by Respondents before
the Industrial Court relating to declaration of they being employees of
Petitioner-PCMC, objection relating to maintainability of the Complaint and
jurisdiction of Industrial Court was raised, which in my view was quite
unnecessary.
40 Petitioner-PCMC itself has placed on record some of the
correspondence that took place between it and the State Government on the
katkam Page No. 79

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 80 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

subject of absorption of Respondents in service. Though all the proposals since
the year 2000 are not placed on record, one such proposal dated 17 April 2008
is produced alongwith the Petition. The proposal was sent by the Municipal
Commissioner to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. The proposal referred to the scheme of cleanliness
implemented by the then Municipal Commissioner in the year 1997, which
included inter alia door to door garbage collection by use of pushcarts. The
proposal then referred to the number of persons engaged on pushcarts as
contractors. Reference is made to Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999. The
proposal thereafter gave details of total 353 contractors, who had rendered
services ranging between 7 to 9 years. The proposal also referred to various
resolutions adopted by General Body and Standing Committee for absorption
of such Ghantagadi employees in Municipal service. This is how, proposal was
sent to the State Government pointing out that Respondents were willing to
give-up claim for backwages and that in the event of Complaint being allowed,
Petitioner-PCMC would be burdened with amount of Rs. 29.04 crores
towards backwages. It appears that the proposal of Petitioner-PCMC has been
rejected by the State Government vide letter dated 18 May 2010 essentially
referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka
7
and others vs. Umadevi and others holding that the Respondents were back-
door entrants. Without going into the aspect of entitlement of Respondents to
regularization at this juncture, what is necessary to note in the State
Government’s Reply dated 18 May 2010 is repeated use of the word ‘backdoor
entry’. The State Government thus did not reject the proposal stating that the
7 AIR 2006 SC 1806
katkam Page No. 80

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 81 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

pure contractor cannot be absorbed in Municipal service in absence of
employer-employee relationship. On the contrary, the State Government also
treated the Respondents as employees but refused to approve their absorption
on the ground that they are back-door entrants.
41 There can be little doubt that the Petitioner-PCMC itself was making
repeated efforts to absorb Respondents in service. No doubt, Petitioner-PCMC
initially adopted a defence that Respondents were pure contractors, however
during pendency of the litigation in last 25 long years, it has definitely
changed its stance and has been treating them virtually as their employees.
Therefore, though Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003 continuous to remain
pending raising the issue of maintainability of the Complaint, alteration in the
stand of the Petitioner-PCMC by repeatedly sending proposals for absorption
of Respondents in service by treating them as employees of Petitioner-PCMC
has definitely reduced the severity of objection of maintainability of the
Complaint.
42 In fact when Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003 had come up before this
Court on 10 July 2014, the learned Judge ( N. M Jamdar, J. ) clearly expressed as
under:
7. The learned counsel for the Respondent Union submitted that in all the decisions which
are cited and referred to above are in the cases where the workmen are employed through
contractor and where they are trying to change their employer then such dispute will not
fall in the jurisdiction of the Court under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. He submitted that,
in the present case, however, it is the case of the respondent Union that the Corporation is
their employer, however, they have been wrongfully given appointments on contract basis
which is an unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the respondent Union has
katkam Page No. 81

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 82 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

drawn my attention to the decision of the learned Single Judge in case of Raigad Mazdoor
Sangh (supra), where the learned Single Judge observed as under :
“ 3. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, in my opinion, considering the
provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act and the judgment of the apex Court in
the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha v/s Kalyani Steels Ltd. (supra) and the
subsequent judgment in the case of Cipla Ltd. v/s Maharashtra General Kamgar
st
Union in Civil Appeal No.12845 of 1996 decided on 21 February, 2001 ( 2001 I
CLR 754) the Tribunal under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, in case where
admittedly there is a contractor registered under the Contract Labour Registration
Act would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It may, however, be
made clear that what the Apex Court has held is in a case where the Contractor is
a contractor registered under the Contract Labour Regulations Employment Act.
There are situations wherein the employees are made contractors, and may in
situations be registered under the Contract Labour Regulations Employment Act
whether on the facts of such cases would the Courts under the M.R.T.U. &
P.U.L.P. Act would cease to have jurisdiction, to my mind, is an issue which has
not been decided.”
The learned Judge noted that the issue whether the Court under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.
Act would have jurisdiction when the employees are made contractor, was not decided.
The learned counsel for the parties submitted that, in spite of their best efforts they
have not been able to locate any direct judgment on the issue.
“8. The question therefore arose is, whether the Respondent Union can maintain a
complaint on the ground that they are employees of the Petitioner Corporation but they
were wrongly shown as working on contract without any contracts in between. In the case of
Sarva Shramik Sangh (supra), the Apex Court, in paragraph 23 reproduced above, has laid
down a wider proposition that it is necessary for the complainant to show, as a condition
precedent, to have been treated by the employer as his employee, and unless this is shown,
the Court will have no jurisdiction. It is not a question of ouster of jurisdiction but
acceptance of the status as an employee is a condition precedent. Therefore, the question is
whether these observations, which are in wide terms are to be made applicable to the facts of
the present case as well and to hold that the complaint is not maintainable. Before doing so,
it will have to be kept in mind that the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act is a beneficial legislation
meant to provide the workmen with expeditious additional remedy, and the provisions of
this Act have been liberally construed.”
(emphasis added)
43 Thus the usual objection of bar of jurisdiction to entertain complaint of
unfair labour practice in the light of existence of dispute as employer-employee
would not apply to the present case, where there is no triangular arrangement
of principal employer, third part contractor and worker. Use of the words
katkam Page No. 82

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 83 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

‘contract’ and ‘contractor’ in the present case is nothing but a semantic exercise
and Petitioner has virtually employed Respondents. Therefore, declaration of
Respondents being employees of Petitioner was not necessary in the
Compliant. Even if, it is to be assumed that such declaration was needed, the
said declaration cannot be put on the same pedestal as that of a declaration of
contract beings sham and bogus in a triangular arrangement of principal
employer, contractor and worker.
44. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, where there is no
intermediate contractor between Petitioner-PCMC and Respondents coupled
with paradigm shift in Petitioner’s stance by treating them as employees, in my
view, the objection of maintainability of Complaint and jurisdiction of
Industrial Court needs to be repelled. As observed above, it was not necessary
for Respondents to seek a declaration of existence of employer-employee
relationship as use of the word ‘contract’ or ‘contractor’ to describe the
arrangement is nothing but a semantic exercise, when in fact the Respondents
have actually worked for Petitioner-PCMC for remuneration. In absence of
intermediate contractor, declaration of contract being sham and bogus cannot
be, and in the present case, need not be sought. It is therefore held that
Respondents are not contractors, but merely contract employees of Petitioner
Municipal Corporation. I am therefore of the view that neither Order dated 22
November 2002 on preliminary issue nor the final judgment and order dated
30 January 2023 suffer from any jurisdictional error. The Industrial Court has
rightly entertained the Complaint of the Respondents and adjudicated their
demand for absorption in service.
katkam Page No. 83

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 84 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

45. Since it is held that Respondents were/are not contractors but contract
employees of the Municipal Corporation, it is not necessary to consider the
issue of fulfilment of 6 tests laid down by the Apex Court in Balwant Singh
Saluja .
46 Having answered the issue of maintainability of Complaint and
jurisdiction of Industrial Court, the next issue is about entitlement of
Respondents to seek absorption in service of Petitioner-PCMC. Once
Respondents are treated as employees of Petitioner-PCMC, the length of
service rendered by them since initial engagements will have to be considered
and by now, they have rendered more than 25 years of service. In fact, many of
them have expired during pendency of the litigation.
47. Since the case involves the issue of absorption of Respondents in
municipal service, the same cannot be resolved without making reference to
the landmark judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra). After
the judgment in Umadevi , regularization of casual/ adhoc /temporary/contract
employees in Government services is now virtually impermissible merely on
the basis of length of service rendered by such employees. In paragraph 43 of
the judgment the Apex Court has held as under:
“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic
feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court
would certainly he disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in
ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read
with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public
employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the
appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified
persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual
katkam Page No. 84

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 85 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an
engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end
when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made
permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely
because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the
term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made
permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not
made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not
open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees
whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very
nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article
226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation,
or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of
the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employce had continued under cover of an
order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of
the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the sorvice. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim
directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to
relief, it may be possible for it to mould the velief in such a manner that ultimately no
prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his couployment
would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of
paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that
they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates.”
48 A onetime exception however is carved out in Umadevi for
regularization of irregularly appointed employees against regularly sanctioned
posts, who had worked for 10 years without intervention of orders of Courts or
Tribunals. In paragraph 53 the Apex Court has directed as under:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore vs. S.V.
Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128, R. N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmaiah, (1972) 1
SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 and
referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant
posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten
years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of tribunals.
The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of
India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to
katkam Page No. 85

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 86 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of
orders of the Courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular
recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now
employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We
also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly
appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
49 If the claims of Respondents are to be considered strictly in accordance
with the judgment of Constitution Bench in Umadevi obviously they cannot
be absorbed in service. Similarly, the claim for absorption in service merely on
completion of 240 days of service under clause 4-C of Model Standing Orders
formulated under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is
frowned upon by the Division Bench of this Court in The Municipal Council,
8
Tirora and another vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade , in which it is held in
paragraphs 19 to 21 as under:
19. In this reference, the position emerging before us is similar. There is no
conflict between the provisions of M.S.O. 4C and the provisions of the section 76 of
the 1965 Act. In the event of the appointment having been made validly, it may be
possible to invoke the provisions Cl. 4C of M.S.O. A view to the contrary would
result in regularizing/validating a void act. Cl. 4C neither permits nor contemplates
the same. As held in the above judgments, if the appointment is not made in
accordance with the constitutional scheme, it is void ab initio and, therefore, there
can be no claim to its regularization or for grant of permanency in any manner. This
is all the more so as Cl. 32 of the M.S.O. clarifies that the Standing Orders are not
to operate in derogation of any other law i.e, section 76 of 1965 Act. Definitely any
interpretation of Clause 4C conducive to defeating the Constitutional mandate is
unwarranted. Violation of Clause 4C of the MSO may tantamount to an unfair
labour practice under item 9 of Sch. IV of the 1971 Act but unless and until, other
additional factors are proved on record, finding of indulgence in an unfair labour
practice under Item 6 of Sch. IV thereof cannot be reached. As explained by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan
Karmchari Sanghatana, (supra), existence of a legal vacancy must be established and
as discussed above, the power to recruit with the employer must also be
8 2016 (6) MhLJ 867
katkam Page No. 86

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 87 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

demonstrated. In absence thereof, workman cannot succeed in proving the
commission of unfair labour practice under Item 6 by the employer. These two
ingredients, therefore, also must be established when benefit of Cl. 4C is being
claimed. Unless availability of a vacancy is shown or then power with the employer
to create the post and to fill it is brought on record, mere continuation of 240 days
cannot and does not enable the workman to claim permanency by taking recourse
to Cl. 4C read with Item 9 of Sch. IV of 1971 Act. Clause 4C does not employ word
"regularisation" but then it is implicit in it as no "permanency" is possible without
it. Conversely, it follows that when a statutory provision like section 76 disables the
employer either from creating or filling in the posts, such a claim cannot be
sustained. This also nullifies the reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge
in case of Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited
(supra) where the employer was a private Company not subjected to such regulatory
measures by any Statute and enjoyed full freedom to create the posts and to recruit.
One of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party to the judgment of this Court in
Raymond UCO Denim Private Ltd. vs. Praful Warade and ors. (supra) which again
needs to be distinguished for the same reasons. The judgment of learned Single
Judge in case of Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. vs. Industrial Court and ors. (supra),
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported at Western India Match Company Ltd. and Workmen are all
considered therein and are distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the
province of public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints (the
suprema lex - see Mahendra L. Jain vs. Indore Development Authority and others
(supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO. For same reasons, law laid down by the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 754 2007 (1) CLR 460
Gangadhar Balgopal Nair vs. Voltas Limited and anr. does not advance the cause of
workmen. The Division Bench of this Court in May and Baker Ltd. vs. Kishore
Jaikishandas Icchaporia (supra) while construing section 10A(3) held that the
expression "other law" would not refer to the Model Standing Orders or the
Certified Standing Orders since they are laws made under the provisions of Parent
Act itself and not under any other law. The Model Standing Orders and Certified
Standing Orders, held the Division Bench, "are laws no doubt but they are laws
made under the provisions of the Act". They were held not to be provisions under
any other law. This discussion therefore shows how these words "in derogation of
any law for the time being in force" in Cl. 32 of MSO need to be understood and
does not help Adv. Jaiswal or Adv. Khan.
20. In Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and anr.
(supra) relied upon by Adv. Parihar, Hon'ble Apex Court follows its Constitution
Bench in Umadevi (III) and while rejecting relief of regularization to the daily
wagers who were engaged in public employment without proper procedure, grants
them compensation of 4 Lakh each by way of compassion. This judgment does not
consider any welfare labour legislation and, therefore, cannot provide direct answer
to the reference made. Judgment of this Court taking similar view in the light of
1971 Act in the case of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola vs. General Secretary,
Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Union and anr. (supra) is already considered above. The
Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and anr. vs. Pandurang
katkam Page No. 87

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 88 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Sitaram Jadhav (supra) finds that the respondents before it were employed as daily
wagers in the establishment of the Government Milk Dairy for a longer period of
12 to 20 years. There were no sanctioned posts and vacancies in existence in the
concerned department. Respondents failed to demonstrate that their appointments
were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed for selection. The Division
Bench finds it wholly unjust to direct the appellant State Government to grant
permanency to the respondents. It points out that the provisions of Model Standing
Orders are subject to the Rules regulating selection and appointment so also subject
to the constitutional scheme of public employment. Respondents daily wagers are
declared to possess no legal right to claim permanency. Order passed by the learned
Single Judge to the contrary have been quashed. State Government is held obliged
to make appointments in adherence to the constitutional scheme of Public
employment. Respondents Daily Wagers appointed without following the
prescribed procedure for selection by passing public participation did not acquire
any legal right to claim permanency. It is apparent that no inconsistency exists and
cannot be worked out in State of Maharashtra and anr. vs. Pandurang Sitaram
Jadhav as also Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale
(supra) on one hand and Ballarpur Industries Limited vs. Maharashtra Lok Kamgar
Sanghatana (supra) on the other hand. Status of employer, nature of employment
and inherent Constitutional limitation on public employer or absence of such fetters
on any private employer or absolute freedom available to it to create post/s and
recruit, are some of the distinguishing features which prohibit this exercise.
21. Thus, in the light of this discussion, it follows that in absence of vacant
sanctioned posts with the Municipal Council, a workman who has put in
continuous service of 240 days or more in span of 12 months, cannot invoke Clause
4C of the MSO to claim either permanency or regularization. We accordingly
answer the question referred. Registry to place the writ petitions before the learned
Single Judge as per roaster assignment for further consideration.
Order accordingly.”
50 However, what really comes to the rescue of Respondents are the
judgments of Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
9
and another vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana and Hari
Nandan Prasad & Anr. vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and
10
Another . Both the judgments relate to jurisdiction of an industrial
adjudicator to grant relief under Labour Legislations in view of law laid down
9 2009 (8) SCC 556
10 2014 (7) SCC 190
katkam Page No. 88

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 89 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

by Constitution Bench in Umadevi . After considering the judgment in
Casteribe the Apex Court has held in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. (supra) in
paragraphs 34, 35, 39 and 40 as under:
“34. A close scrutiny of the two cases, thus, would reveal that the law laid down in those
cases is not contradictory to each other. In U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh,
(2007) 5 SCC 755, this Court has recognised the powers of the Labour Court and at the
same time emphasised that the Labour Court is to keep in mind that there should not be
any direction of regularisation if this offends the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution
on which the judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 is primarily
founded. On the other hand, in State of Maharashtra vs. R.S. Bhonde , (2005) 6 SCC 751 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 907 the Court has recognised the principle that having regard to the
statutory powers conferred upon the Labour Court/Industrial Court to grant certain reliefs
to the workmen, which includes the relief of giving the status of permanency to the contract
employees, such statutory power does not get denuded by the judgment in State of
Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3) case (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is clear from the reading of this
judgment that such a power is to be exercised when the employer has indulged in unfair
labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even when available and continuing to
employ workers on temporary/daily-wage basis and taking the same work from them and
making them do some purpose which was being performed by the regular workers but
paying them much less wages. It is only when a particular practice is found to be unfair
labour practice, as enumerated in Schedule IV of the MRTP and PULP Act, and it
necessitates giving direction under Section 30 of the said Act, that the court would give such
a direction.
35. We are conscious of the fact that the aforesaid judgment is rendered under the MRTP
and PULP Act and the specific provisions of that Act were considered to ascertain the
powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court by the said Act. At the same
time, it also hardly needs to be f emphasised that the powers of the industrial adjudicator
under the Industrial Disputes Act are equally wide. The Act deals with industrial disputes.
provides for conciliation, adjudication and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties
and the enforcement of the awards and settlements. Thus, by empowering the adjudicator
authorities under the Act to give reliefs such as reinstatement of wrongfully dismissed or
discharged workmen, 9 which may not be permissible in common law or justified under the
terms of the contract between the employer and such workmen, the legislature has
attempted to frustrate the unfair labour practices and secure the policy of collective
bargaining as a road to industrial peace.”
39. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of
the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice
the Labour Court would not give direction for regularisation only because a worker has
continued as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if
katkam Page No. 89

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 90 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

there are no posts available, such a direction for regularisation would be impermissible. In
the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis
of number of years put in by such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may amount to back door
entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a
direction would not be given when the worker concerned does not meet the eligibility
requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules. However, wherever it is
found that similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some
scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached the
Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of regularisation in such cases
may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself would
amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. Thus, the industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by
upholding Article 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision.
40. The aforesaid examples are only illustrative. It would depend on the facts of each case as
to whether the order of regularisation is necessitated to advance justice or it has to be denied
if giving of such a direction infringes upon the employer's rights.”
(emphasis added)
51 Thus in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Apex Court has held that if posts
are not available, issuance of directions for regularization is impermissible and
such directions cannot be issued only on the basis of number of years put in by
a daily wager. However some exceptions are carved out by the Apex Court
such as regularization of similarly placed workmen, regularization in pursuance
of the scheme etc. In paragraph 40 of the judgment, the Apex Court has
clarified that such examples are merely illustrative and that it would depend on
facts of each case as to whether order of regularization is necessitated to
advance justice or it has to be denied if giving such direction infringes upon
the employer’s rights.
52 In the present case, the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 39
and 40 of the judgment in Hari Nandan Prasad needs to be invoked in the
katkam Page No. 90

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 91 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

light of Petitioner-PCMC’s own eagerness to absorb Respondents in service.
Thus, where the employer himself is eager to absorb its temporary workers in
service, the same can be treated as one of the exceptions envisaged under
paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment in Hari Nandan Prasad . In the present
case, if the State Government was to accord sanction to the proposals sent by
Petitioner-PCMC, Respondents would have been long since absorbed in
service. The Petitioner-PCMC is prevented from absorbing them in service
only on account of refusal to sanction the proposal by State Government.
Careful perusal of letter dated 18 May 2010 of the State Government would
indicate that there is no absolute refusal to accord sanction for the proposals
mooted by successive Municipal Commissioners based on resolutions adopted
by General Body and Standing Committee. One of the reasons why the
proposal was rejected was on account of pendency of Writ Petition No.4931 of
2003 in this Court. In the last paragraph of the letter dated 18 May 2010 the
State Government has referred to the pending litigation. Thus, when the
proposal was rejected by the State Government on 18 May 2010 both
Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 as well as Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003
were pending. Thus, pendency of legal proceedings was possibly one of the
reasons why the State Government thought it appropriate reject the proposals
of the Petitioner-PCMC.
11
53. In Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab , the Apex Court has held as
under:
37. We are of the opinion that neither the Government of Punjab nor these public
sector banks can continue such a practice consistent with their obligation to func-
11 (2013) 14 SCC 65
katkam Page No. 91

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 92 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

tion in accordance with the Constitution. Umadevi (3) judgment cannot become a
licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities.
(emphasis supplied)
54 . The above judgments are not quoted to suggest any departure
from principles enunciated in Constitution Bench Judgment in Umadevi . It
also cannot be that industrial adjudicator can direct regularization de-horse the
Judgment in Umadevi . However, in deserving cases like the present one where
the Respondent has continued in service for 25 long years and especially
where the Municipal Corporation itself was eager to regularize their services,
the Industrial Court was justified in directing their absorption by taking into
consideration unique circumstances of the case.
55 An exception to the law enunciated by Division Bench of this Court in
Municipal Council-Tirora has been carved out by Single Judge of this Court
( Ravindra V. Ghuge J in Raigad Zilla Parishad & Ors. V/s. Kailash Balu
12
Mhatre & Ors ,in which this Court held that though permanency cannot be
granted to temporary employees under Clause 4-C of the Model Standing
Orders in absence of availability of sanctioned posts, proposal needs to be
sent to the State Government for sanction of the posts considering the long
length of service rendered by the employees therein. In the present case, it
appears that such exercise need not be undertaken. T he Industrial Court has
observed that out of 1521 sanctioned posts of Safai Kamgar, 468 posts were
vacant as on the date of passing of the impugned judgment. Thus, there are
available vacant posts coupled with eagerness of Petitioner-PCMC to
12 Writ Petition No. 4307 of 2018 decided on 5 January 2022
katkam Page No. 92

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 93 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

regularize services of Respondents. One of the reasons why Writ Petition
No.1860 of 2024 appears to have been filed by the Petitioner-PCMC
challenging the final order of Industrial Court is on account of direction for
absorption from dates of joining as well as for payment of arrears of benefits
and wages from the dates of joining. It appears that in the proposal dated 17
April 2018, the Petitioner-PCMC had computed the liability towards
backwages at Rs. 29.04 crores which by now must have escalated substantially
after passage of six years from the date of said proposal. The Petitioner-
Municipal Commissioner had recorded in its proposal, the willingness on the
part of Respondents to give-up claim for backwages in the event of their
absorption in service.
56 Considering the overall conspectus of the case in my view, direction for
absorption of Respondents in Municipal services does not warrant any
interference. The Industrial Court has however awarded absorption from the
initial dates of engagements, which in my view would not be appropriate
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. The direction for
payment of arrears of wages and benefits from the dates of initial engagement
is not only unwarranted, but it will also put huge financial burden on the
Petitioner-PCMC. Remanding the Compliant for decision of date for grant of
absorption would further lengthen the litigation which has ensued for the last
25 long years. It would therefore be appropriate to decide the date from the
which the benefit of absorption is to be granted in the unique facts and
circumstances of the case. It has come of record that the Municipal
Corporation resolved to absorb Respondents in service vide Resolution
katkam Page No. 93

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 94 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

No.5563 on 18 August 2005. In my view therefore, it would be appropriate to
direct absorption of Respondents from the date on which the Petitioner-
PCMC adopted first Resolution No. 5563 on 18 August 2005 without
granting any backwages to the concerned Respondents. Once Respondents are
treated as regular Municipal servants with effect from 18 August 2005, in
respect of 20 workers, who have unfortunately passed away during pendency
of litigation, their heirs would be in a position to receive at least pensionary
benefits from the dates of their respective deaths. It is however clarified that
the directions for absorption are being given considering the unique facts and
circumstances of the case, not because of Respondents’ continuation in services
for long time (mainly owing to interim orders), but because the Municipal
Corporation repeatedly resolved to absorb them in service. The directions
therefore shall not be read to mean that in every case, mere continuation in
service for a long time would entitle temporary or contract employees the
benefit of absorption.
57 I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
O R D E R
i) Order dated 22 November 2002 passed by Industrial Court on
preliminary issue in Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 is upheld and
Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003 is dismissed.
ii) Judgment and order dated 30 January 2023 passed by Industrial
Court in Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 is modified to the extent
that the concerned persons included in the list filed alongwith the
katkam Page No. 94

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 95 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

Complaint shall be deemed to have been absorbed in Municipal service
and made permanent with effect from 18 August 2005, which is the
date of first Resolution adopted by the General Body of the Petitioner-
PCMC.
iii) Respondents shall however not be entitled to any backwages
arising out of benefit of absorption in service and permanency with
effect from 18 August 2005. Their service from 18 August 2005
onwards shall however be treated as regular service for all other
purposes, except for backwages.
iv) In respect of Complainants who have passed away during
pendency of proceedings, their cases be processed for payment of
pensionary benefits by treating them as having absorbed in service from
18 August 2005.
v) In respect of those Complainants who still continue to remain in
service, they shall be paid wages in regular pay scales on the absorbed
posts with effect from Industrial Court’s order dated 30 January 2023.
vi) The arrears arising out of pay and pension to the concerned
Complainants shall be paid within a period of four months.
58 With the above Writ Petition No.1860 of 2024 stands partly allowed.
Rule in Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003 is discharged and Rule in Writ Petition
No.1860 of 2024 is partly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
katkam Page No. 95

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::

k 96 911_wp_1860.24___1_J_as.doc

59 In view of the disposal of Writ Petitions, nothing would survive in the
Interim Application, the same is also accordingly disposed of
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
60 After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior
Advocate would pray for stay of the judgment for a period of eight weeks. The
learned counsel appearing for Respondents fairly makes a statement that the
proceedings filed for execution of the judgment and order dated 30 January
2023 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 shall not be pressed by the
Respondents for a period of eight weeks. In my view this arrangement would
sufficiently protect the interest of Petitioner-PCMC. In that view of the matter
it is not necessary to separately pass an order staying the present judgment and
order.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
Digitally signed
by
SUDARSHAN
RAJALINGAM
KATKAM
Date:
2024.08.20
12:35:54 +0530
SUDARSHAN
RAJALINGAM
KATKAM
katkam Page No. 96

::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 13:01:23 :::