Bombay High Court Upholds Reinstatement but Restricts Backwages and Clarifies Equal‑pay Entitlement

A single‑judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne heard petitions by the University of Mumbai challenging an Industrial Court award in Complaint (ULP) No. 208 of 2017 brought by 64 temporary employees alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitions before the High Court included Writ Petition No. 3962 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 2556 of 2019; the matter was reserved on 20 February 2026 and pronounced on 13 March 2026.

The High Court partly allowed the petitions by setting aside and modifying portions of the Industrial Court’s order dated 28 November 2023. It held that the Industrial Court rightly found unfair labour practice under Item 6 and correctly directed reinstatement, but erred in awarding full backwages and in directing payment “equal to the lowest grade” from dates of initial joining. The Court clarified that the Industrial Court did not grant permanency or regularisation and emphasised that “Mere direction for reinstatement cannot be confused with the concept of ‘permanency or regularisation’.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The conspectus of the above discussion is that the Industrial Court has not granted the relief of permanency to the Respondents. It has only granted them reinstatement and the relief of reinstatement granted by the Industrial Court is found to be justified. However, direction for payment of salary equal to lowest grade paid to regular employees from the date of respective joining is found to be erroneous. Instead, arrears need to be restricted only to a period of 90 days before filing of the complaint. Accordingly, Respondents would be entitled to difference of wages between the one actually paid to them and the pay in minimum of pay scale applicable to the relevant posts plus dearness allowance for a period of 90 days prior to filing of the complaint. The direction for payment of consequential benefits and equal pay from 5 July 2017 is also found to be erroneous. As observed above, Respondents would be entitled to only 50% of backwages from 5 July 2017 to 28 November 2023. The backwages shall be calculated on the basis of entry pay in the pay scale applicable to the respective posts plus dearness allowance. From 29 November 2023 till Respondents are actually reinstated, the Petitioner‑University shall pay full wages and dearness allowance arrived at by taking into consideration entry pay in the pay scale applicable to the posts held by the Respondents.”

Background The dispute arose after the University issued a circular dated 30 June 2017 discontinuing temporary employees “whose temporary appointment was for six months” and stating their services “has ceased with closing hours of 30 June, 2017.” The 64 complainants, who performed roles such as peon, junior typist, scientific assistant, data‑entry operator and driver, had filed a complaint claiming status of permanent workmen on completion of 240 days and sought arrears and equal pay. The Industrial Court initially refused interim relief on 3 August 2017, later allowed a review on 7 June 2019 directing allotment of work, and was stayed by this Court on 5 March 2020 in Writ Petition No. 2556 of 2019. After evidence, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, declared an unfair labour practice under Item 6, directed reinstatement from 5 July 2017 and ordered payment equal to the lowest grade and “equal pay at par with the permanent employee” from that date. The University challenged jurisdictional and statutory contentions, argued appointments were tenure‑bound and maintained many posts required State sanction. The High Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the University’s power to create posts because permanency was not granted by the Industrial Court and was not challenged. Applying settled law on limitation and pay parity, the High Court held arrears must be limited to 90 days prior to filing of the complaint; temporary employees were entitled to entry pay in the minimum of the corresponding pay scale (not full parity including increments); and, in view of lack of pleading/evidence of absence of gainful employment, awarded 50% backwages for the period 5 July 2017 to 28 November 2023, full entry‑pay wages from 29 November 2023 until actual reinstatement, allowed withdrawal of amounts earlier deposited by the University, and directed balance payments within four months. Writ Petition No. 2556 of 2019 was disposed as infructuous.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026:BHC‑OS:6574; Writ Petition No. 3962 of 2025; Writ Petition No. 2556 of 2019 Case Title: University of Mumbai and Others v. Amit S. Bagul & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Yuvraj Narwankar & Mr. Suraj Kaushik For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.C. Naidu (with Mr. Abhishek Ingale, Ms. Divya Yajurvedi & Mr. Pradeep Kumar i/b C.R. Naidu & Co.), Mr. Manoj Gujar, Mr. T.R. Yadav