Ending the dispute between the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) and its Safai Karmacharis, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) ruled that the sanitation workers cannot demand entitlement to regularisation in service upon completion of 240 days of service as per the Model Standing Orders (MSO), in the absence of any sanctioned vacant posts.
As far as the applicability of MSO is concerned, the Court referred to the decision of Municipal Council, Tirora vs Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade [2016 (6) MhLJ 867 (D.B.)], to reiterate that for employees of a Municipal Council, the right to regularization under Clause 4(C) of the MSO cannot be claimed in the absence of a sanctioned post, as the power to sanction posts is not vested with the Municipal Council itself.
The Court therefore held that the right to regularisation based on Clause 4(C) of the MSO cannot be claimed unless the appointment is made against a sanctioned post and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant Municipal Corporations Act or Municipal Councils Act.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rohit W. Joshi observed that the complainants had already been accommodated against 4407 supernumerary posts created by the State Government, and their services were regularised upon completion of 20 years of service.
The Single Judge also pointed out that the merits of a policy decision for the regularisation of services of daily wagers cannot be adjudicated by the Industrial Court. Since the complainants’ appointments were not against sanctioned posts, the policy decision to grant regularisation after 20 years was not in violation of MSO 4(C).
Finally, the Bench concluded that the complainants failed to establish any right to claim regularisation upon completion of 240 days of service as per MSO 4(C), since their appointments were not against any sanctioned vacant post. Thus, the decision of the Industrial Court that the NMC had indulged in unfair labour practice was not sustainable. Accordingly, the Bench quashed the orders passed by the Industrial Court.
Briefly, the complainants who were appointed as ‘Safai Karmachari’ on a daily wage basis, had alleged that they had rendered more than 240 days of service in each calendar year since their appointment and that the work of a regular employee was extracted from them while they were treated as substitute workers for approximately 22 years. This culminated in a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging that the NMC had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the Act. They therefore claimed entitlement to regularisation in service upon completion of 240 days of work in a calendar year, based on Clause 4(C) of the MSO.
The NMC opposed this demand, contending that there were no sanctioned posts against which the complainant’s services could be regularised. In the meantime, the State Government created 4407 supernumerary posts of Safai Karmacharis. Consequently, the complainants were issued appointment orders on these supernumerary posts, subject to the stipulation that they would not be entitled to the benefit of their previous service, which the complainants accepted unconditionally.
Later, the Industrial Court allowed the complaints, declaring that the NMC had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It also directed the NMC to submit a proposal to the State Government to grant the benefit of permanency to the complainants upon completion of 240 days of service and to subsequently grant all consequential benefits, including pension and gratuity.
Appearances:
Advocate V. P. Marpakwar, for the Petitioners
Advocates S. N. Bhattad, U. P. Aakare, and S. B. Bissa, for the Respondent
