Prolonged temporary engagement against sanctioned vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice, mandating regularisation by a model employer.

Approximately 120 employees were engaged as Class IV daily-wage workers at Dr. Vaishampayan Memorial Government Medical College and Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Sarvopachar Rugnalay, Solapur, for over 15 years.

Despite the existence of 383 sanctioned posts and 145 vacancies, the State continued them on daily wages below statutory minimums.

The employees filed complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practices.

The Industrial Court, Solapur, found they had completed continuous service for over a decade but only directed the State to "forward proposals for administrative approval".

Both the employees (seeking full regularisation) and the State (challenging any relief) filed cross-writ petitions.

1. Whether the Industrial Court was justified in restricting relief to a direction to "forward a proposal for approval" instead of granting full regularisation after finding a decade of continuous service against sanctioned vacancies.

2. Whether the State can defeat the claims of employees found to be victims of unfair labour practices by initiating a fresh recruitment process for the same posts during the pendency of litigation.

3. Whether the findings of unfair labour practices and entitlement to permanency suffered from perversity.

Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971, regarding the deprivation of permanent status for temporary workers.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the State's duty as a "Model Employer" to act with fairness and probity.

The court distinguished Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, noting it cannot shield exploitative adhocism.

Principles from Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026 INSC 99), asserting that prolonged temporary service creates a "legitimate expectation" of permanence that cannot be waived by contractual terms.

The Court held that the State’s conduct in keeping essential healthcare workers on daily wages for 15 years was unconscionable and a "culture of adhocism".

The court reasoned that once a positive finding of fact was recorded—specifically, continuous service exceeding 240 days per year and the availability of sanctioned vacant posts—the Industrial Court’s failure to grant regularisation was an error of law.

By issuing a fresh recruitment advertisement in October 2025 for the same posts while litigation was pending, the State acted with "impunity" to defeat adjudicated rights.

The Court determined that the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation applied because the workers were essential to hospital efficiency and patient safety, and the State could not rely on procedural irregularities to deny regularisation when it had failed to conduct regular recruitment for decades.

The High Court allowed the employees' petitions, dismissed the State’s petitions, modified the Industrial Court's orders, and directed the State to regularise the employees in service against available sanctioned posts with all consequential benefits within eight weeks, quashing the State's communication dated 10/04/2026.