Temporary employees are entitled to minimum pay scales of corresponding regular posts but not permanency.

The Respondents were engaged by the Petitioner-University as temporary employees in various non-teaching posts (Peons, Clerks, etc.) for several years

In June 2017, the Respondents filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices and seeking regularisation

Simultaneously, the University issued a circular on June 30, 2017, discontinuing their services

The Industrial Court, Mumbai, vide order dated November 28, 2023, found the University guilty of unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971

The Industrial Court directed reinstatement with full backwages and equal pay at par with permanent employees from the date of joining

The Petitioner challenged this order, arguing the Respondents were tenure appointees and that the court lacked jurisdiction

Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide on termination and reinstatement when the complaint was filed under Items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act

Whether the discontinuation of the Respondents' services amounted to illegal retrenchment in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Whether temporary employees are entitled to equal pay and backwages from their initial date of joining despite the law of limitation

The court primarily applied the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971, specifically Item 6 of Schedule IV regarding the exploitation of temporary workers

It relied on the principle from *State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017)*, establishing that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale (entry-level pay plus DA) applicable to regular posts, but not increments or total parity

Regarding limitation, it applied *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008)* and *M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995)*, holding that while pay fixation is a continuous cause of action, recovery of arrears is restricted by the period of limitation

It also applied Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the necessity of notice and compensation for retrenchment

The Court upheld the Industrial Court’s jurisdiction, noting that since the termination occurred during the pendency of a complaint for permanency, the Industrial Court could grant reinstatement to prevent victimisation

On merits, the Court found that the University failed to prove the Respondents were strictly "fixed-term" employees under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, as no specific tenure orders for all 64 Respondents were produced and they had worked for years

However, the Court found the Industrial Court's direction to pay "lowest grade salary" from the date of joining to be legally flawed

Following *Tarsem Singh*, the Court held that arrears must be restricted to 90 days prior to the filing of the complaint as per the limitation period prescribed under the MRTU & PULP Act

Regarding backwages, the Court noted a total lack of pleading or evidence by the Respondents regarding absence of gainful employment; however, considering the University’s act of sudden discontinuation during litigation, it awarded 50% backwages instead of 100%

It sustained the direction for reinstatement but modified the financial relief

The Respondents are held entitled to: (i) difference of wages (minimum of pay scale plus DA) for only 90 days prior to the complaint

50% backwages from July 5, 2017, to November 28, 2023, based on the entry-level pay scale

full salary at the entry-level pay scale from November 29, 2023, until actual reinstatement

The University was directed to clear all dues within four months

Writ Petition No. 2556 of 2019 was disposed of as infructuous