Mere 240 Days Service No Ground for Regularization in Municipal Service: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that temporary employees in State instrumentalities cannot claim permanency solely by completing 240 days of service, reinforcing that judicial authorities cannot indirectly order the creation of posts. Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the ruling while adjudicating a challenge against an Industrial Court order that dismissed complaints of unfair labour practice. The petitioners, who were engaged as Junior Engineers on a contract basis for projects under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), had sought permanency and pay parity with regular municipal employees.

Key Takeaways

Sanctioned Posts are Pre-requisite

Completion of 240 days of service does not entitle a worker to regularization unless there is a validly sanctioned vacant post available.

Judicial Restraint on Post Creation

Industrial and Labour Courts cannot exercise their powers to indirectly compel the State or Municipal Corporations to create new permanent positions.

Project-Based Employment Limitations

Employees hired specifically for time-bound projects like JNNURM do not acquire a vested right to be absorbed into the permanent municipal establishment.

Distinction in Employment Types

Public employment is governed by constitutional mandates under Constitution of India, 1950 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, making the automatic permanency concepts of private sector labor law inapplicable.

Limits of Model Standing Orders

The Bombay High Court observed that while Clause 4-C of the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is often cited by workmen, it cannot be used to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. The bench emphasized that for State instrumentalities like the Pune Municipal Corporation, the power to create posts lies with the executive and requires government sanction.

The Bombay High Court, in its reasoning, observed that "In services of Governments and State instrumentalities, the concept of permanency on completion of specified number of days cannot be made applicable as grant of permanent status not only requires existence of permanent posts, but also the liability to pay salaries, pension etc... Creation of excess posts impairs the functions of the organisation which then becomes incapable of performing the duties for which the same is created."

Ratio

An industrial adjudicator has no jurisdiction to direct the grant of permanency or regularization to temporary employees in a State instrumentality in the absence of sanctioned vacant posts. The mere completion of 240 days of continuous service does not constitute an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 if the original appointment was contractual, project-based, or lacked adherence to a regular recruitment process mirroring constitutional standards.

Background

The dispute began when the Pune Municipal Corporation issued an advertisement in 2005 for Junior Engineers. While the petitioners were wait-listed, they were later engaged on a contract basis in 2007 for the JNNURM project. After rendering approximately three years of service, they filed complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 seeking permanency. Their services were terminated in 2011, leading to a long-drawn legal battle involving references to the Labour Court and previous rounds of litigation in the High Court.

The petitioners relied on Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another and Jaggo vs. Union of India and others ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 715) to argue that long-term temporary employment amounts to an unfair labour practice. They further cited Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs. Jet Airways regarding the application of Model Standing Orders. However, the Respondent Corporation argued that the JNNURM project was temporary and no permanent posts were sanctioned by the State Government for it.

Justice Marne analyzed the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3) and the subsequent harmonization in MSRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Rajya Karmachari Sanghatana and Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. v. Employer I/R through Management of FCI & Anr.. The Bench noted that the petitioners had only three years of service, failing the 10-year threshold established for "one-time" regularization exceptions. Following the principles in Municipal Council Tirora Versus. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade ( "2016 (6) MH.L. 867": 2016 CaseBase(BOM) 843) and University of Mumbai vs. Sunil Tanda Pagare, the Bombay High Court concluded that the Industrial Court was justified in denying the claim for permanency.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.9668 OF 2016
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:44564
Case Title: Shri. Sanjay Shamrao Bhor & Ors. V/s. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Mr. Abhishek Roy, Mr. Gourav Shahane and Ms. Shweta Shah

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 7140