Synopsis

Approximately 120 daily wage workers employed in Class IV positions (sweepers, attendants, etc.) at a government medical college in Solapur had been working continuously for over 15 years. Despite 383 sanctioned posts existing, with more than 100 lying vacant, the State kept these workers on daily wages, paying them below statutory minimum, and denied them permanency. The Industrial Court found that the State had engaged in unfair labour practices but granted only a limited relief – directing the State to forward the employees’ names for approval, not regularisation. The State then issued a fresh recruitment advertisement for the same posts, seeking to displace these long‑serving workers. The High Court allowed the employees’ writ petitions and dismissed the State’s petitions, holding that: (i) the Industrial Court ought to have granted substantive relief of regularisation; (ii) the State, as a model employer, cannot exploit workers for decades while vacancies exist; (iii) the fresh recruitment advertisement was an attempt to defeat adjudicated rights; and (iv) the State’s reliance on Umadevi was misplaced in light of Bhola Nath and subsequent Supreme Court judgments. The court directed regularisation of the employees with all consequential benefits within eight weeks.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh

Date of Judgment: 10th April 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 10825 of 2025 & connected matters (2026:BHC-KOL:3186) (unreported)

Core Law: Service law – regularisation of daily wage workers; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Schedule IV Items 5, 6, 9, 10 (unfair labour practices); Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 226, 227

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Schedule IV Items 5, 6, 9, 10 (unfair labour practices including failure to regularise temporary employees working against perennial vacancies)

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 (right to equality; prohibition of arbitrary State action); Article 226/227 (writ jurisdiction)

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – principles of continuous service (Section 25-B) read for context

• Service jurisprudence – regularisation of daily wage workers, legitimate expectation, model employer obligation

Key legal principles applied

Unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV: Engaging employees on temporary or casual basis for years while work is perennial and sanctioned posts are available constitutes an unfair labour practice. The employer cannot exploit the unequal bargaining power.

Model employer – constitutional obligation: The State, as a model employer, has a heightened obligation to act with probity, fairness, and candour. It cannot keep employees in a perpetual state of precariousness, especially when the

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.