Court restricts regularization to employees with over 10 years of service by August 2022, denies unfair labour practice finding for long temporary engagement alone
In a significant judgment delivered on October 21, 2026, the Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petitions filed by the University of Mumbai challenging the Industrial Court's order that had directed the grant of permanency to 108 temporary non-teaching employees. The case arose out of complaints filed by these employees alleging unfair labour practices by the University under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act).
The Industrial Court had declared that the University committed unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Act, which relate to showing favouritism and employing employees as temporaries with an intent to deprive them of permanent status, respectively. Consequently, the Court ordered the University to grant permanency to all 108 employees with effect from July 1, 2022, along with wages, allowances, benefits, and perquisites applicable to permanent employees. It also allowed employees to withdraw deposited wages accumulated during the pendency of the complaint.
The University contested this order before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting permanency relief which was not specifically prayed for in the complaint. It further contended that the employment of these temporary workers did not constitute unfair labour practice under Item 6 because the University's statutory framework, governed by the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, permits creation of temporary posts depending on funding and changing needs. The University also highlighted that many employees were appointed without following proper recruitment procedures and that the creation of permanent posts requires State Government sanction, which was lacking.
The Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the statutory provisions, the facts, and relevant Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark 'Umadevi' decision, which restricts regularization of temporary employees without adherence to constitutional recruitment norms unless a one-time exception applies. It recognized that while the Industrial Court has broad powers under Section 30(1)(b) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act to grant affirmative relief once unfair labour practice is established, such power is circumscribed by constitutional and statutory mandates.
Crucially, the Court held that mere long-term engagement as temporary employees, in the context of a University allowed to create temporary posts under its own funds, does not ipso facto amount to unfair labour practice under Item 6. The University's intention to deprive employees of permanency was not established on record. Therefore, the blanket declaration of unfair labour practice and grant of permanency to all 108 employees was unsustainable.
However, the Court carved out an exception aligned with the 'Umadevi' judgment, allowing regularization only for those temporary employees who were irregularly appointed but had completed at least ten years of service by August 30, 2022, against the backdrop of existing vacant sanctioned posts. In this case, only 29 of the 108 employees fulfilled this criterion.
For the remaining employees who had not completed ten years, the Court denied regularization but upheld their entitlement to the difference between the consolidated salary they received and the minimum pay scale applicable to permanent employees for the period from July 1, 2022, to August 30, 2022. Additionally, these employees were awarded compensation at the rate of 15 days' wages for each completed year of service.
The Court also directed the University to reinstate eligible employees within six weeks, permit withdrawal of deposited wages for eligible employees up to September 2025, and pay arrears from October 2025 till actual reinstatement. For ineligible employees, withdrawal would be limited to wage differentials and compensation as specified.
The judgment underscores the delicate balance between employees' rights and institutional autonomy within statutory and constitutional frameworks, emphasizing that regularization and permanency cannot be granted indiscriminately but must respect recruitment norms, availability of posts, and service length.
Bottom Line:
MRTU & PULP Act - University temporary non-teaching employees - Industrial Court can grant consequential relief of permanency even in absence of specific prayer if unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established - However, in case of University governed by Maharashtra Public Universities Act, mere long continuation as temporary employee does not by itself establish unfair labour practice under Item 6 - Regularisation cannot be granted to all temporary employees irrespective of recruitment process, length of service and availability of posts - Only those employees who had completed 10 years of service by 30-8-2022 were held entitled to regularisation against existing vacant posts - Remaining employees held entitled only to difference in wages for period 1-7-2022 to 30-8-2022 and compensation at 15 days' wages per completed year of service.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sections 27, 28, 30(1)(b); Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 Sections 8, 134; Constitution of India Articles 14 and 16
University of Mumbai v. Sunil Tanga Pagare, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000333
