The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a temporary employee's unfair labour practices complaint. The Court held that without a sanctioned post, no vested right to permanency arose upon completing the temporary term.
Writ petition dismissed; ad interim stay vacated; nothing granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3019 OF 2008
Anand Ashok Burande
..Petitioner.
Vs.
Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti and another
..Respondents.
Mr. Ashok b. Tajane for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
29th April, 2008.
P.C. :
basis as a Cold Storage Supervisor between 1st February, 2003 and 31st January, 2005. Each of the 9 orders under which the Petitioner was appointed was for a specified term and upon the expiry of the term the appointment came to an end. The Industrial
Court has noted that there was no sanctioned post during the term
when the Petitioner was in service as a temporary employee. The last order of appointment was on 31st January, 2005. The post of Cold Storage Supervisor was sanctioned by the Director only on
2
30th October, 2006. Such a sanction is mandatory under Rule 100 (5) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1967 under which no new post can be created nor can an appointment be made to a post, (not being a temporary or officiating appointment for a period exceeding six months) without the previous approval of the director. In these circumstances, the Petitioner who was appointed for a temporary period had no vested right to continue and the mere completion of 240 days would not confer upon him the status of a permanent employee. The reliance which has been placed during the course of the submissions on the provisions of Rule 9 of the Service Rules applicable to the First Respondent is misconceived because Rule 9 applies to a probationary appointment. The appointment of the Petitioner was purely temporary and was not on probation. The Industrial Court has correctly appreciated the factual and legal position and is not in error in dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practices instituted by the Petitioner under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. No case for interference in the extra ordinary
3
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. The Petition is dismissed.
be open to the Petitioner to apply for being appointed in the regular process and his application shall be considered in accordance with
law. The Industrial Court had granted an ad interim stay which was
to remain in force until 30th April, 2008. In view of the dismissal of
the writ petition by this Court, the stay shall stand vacated.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a temporary appointment without a sanctioned post confers a vested right to permanent status.
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Whether the writ petition should be allowed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Anand Ashok Burande
Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
