STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus R.S. BHONDE AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 17-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
R.S. BHONDE AND ORS. 
AUGUST l 7, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.) 
Labour Laws : 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices Act, 1971 /Punjabrao Kris hi University (Kris hi Vidyapeeth) 
C 
Act, 1968; Section 50(8)/Maharashtra Agricu/trural Universities (Krishi 
Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 : 
Daily Wager-Working continuously-Performing work/duties of per-
manent in nature-Claiming benefit at par l1lith permanent employee-
D 
Industrial Tribunal directing the University/College to make them permanent 
subject to approval of the State Government-Challenge to-High Court 
modified the order by substituting 'prior approval' in place of 'approval' 
by the State Government-1968 Act repealed-Later, the High Court in 
other connected matter directed the University/College to treat them 
permanent employees with all consequential benefits-On appeal, Held :-
E 
Merely because Section 50(8) of 1968 Act repealed that does not take away 
the effect of the order of the High Court passed erlier-8esides, earlier 
order of the High Court attained finality as not challenged 
The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as F 
to whether the approval of the State Government was necessary for the 
purpose of treating the casual workers/daily wagers permanent employ-
ees and as to whether they are entitled to all consequential benefits as 
permanent employees in terms of order of the High Court in other 
connected matters, holding that approval/prior approval of the State 
Government was not required before making them permanent as Sec-
G 
tion 50(B) of the Punjab Krishi University Act repealed. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The order of the High Court is clearly untenable on more H 
763 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
than one counts. That the earlier order of the High Court in other 
connected cases had become final since there was no challenge to it. 
Prayer in the subsequent writ petition to enforce Industrial Court's 
order is clearly not maintainable. Merely because Section 50(B) of the 
1968 Act was repealed that did not take away the effect of the order 
B 
passed by the High Court in the earlier cases. The prayer for enforce-
ment of the Industrial Court's order in its original form could not have 
been made, when the same had been modified by the High Court in its 
earlier order, which had attained finality Hence, the impugned judg-
ment of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. However, 
regularization of daily wagers/employees shall take effect from the 
C 
respective dates of order in that regard as passed by the authority and 
not from 7.11.1983 as directed by the High Court. (766-F, G; 767-C] 
Mahatma Phule Agricultural University & Ors. v. Nazsik Zilla Sheth 
Kamgar Union & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 346 and Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajoor 
D Union v. Dinkar Rao Kalyanrao Jagdale, (2001) 7 sec 356, relied on. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4262 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.96 of the Bombay High 
Court at Nagpur in W.P. No. 1343 of 1984. 
Ravindra K. Adsure, Shivaji M. Jadhav and Mukesh K. Giri for the 
Appellants. 
F 
A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. : State of Maharashtra and the Punjabrao 
Krishi Vidyapeeth (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') question 
G legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High 
Court, Nagpur Bench. By the impugned judgment the High Court directed 
that there was no necessity for obtaining approval of the State Government 
for the purpose of treating the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 
'employees') as the permanent employees w.e.f. 7.11.1983 and that they are 
H entitled to all benefits from that date as permanent employees. 
STATE v. R.S. BHONDE [PASA YAT, J.] 
765 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The respondents and several others, who according to the appellants 
were engaged on seasonal basis, approached the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, 
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur by filing complaint purportedly under Section 28 
A 
read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade B 
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'Act'). The case of the complainants was that they were 
continuously working with. the present appellant no.2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.