The State of Maha., Thr. the Director of Higher Education, Pune and Anr. vs Vidya Rajesh Kshirsagar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State of Maha., Thr. the Director of Higher Education, Pune and Anr. vs Vidya Rajesh Kshirsagar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Industrial Court's order allowing respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to amend their complaint and adding the petitioners as party respondents - allegedly without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing - is sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The absence of a prior opportunity of hearing does not vitiate the Industrial Court's order: the Assistant Government Pleader could not show that a hearing would have led to a different conclusion, could not assign reasons why the amendment should not be allowed, and the amendment has relevance to the respondents' final relief.

Ratio / Principle

Once the amendment is allowed, the respondent-employees allege unfair labour practice by the petitioners as well (non-granting of approval to sanctioned posts, post-sanctioning being within the petitioners' domain); therefore the petitioners' presence as party respondents is necessary.

Key takeaways

The Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioners' presence is necessary considering the amended pleadings.ratio¶14
The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No. 613/2025, decided 08.07.2025 by Anil L. Pansare, J. - The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State and another vs Smt. Vidya Rajesh Kshirsagar and others. The petitioners challenged an Industrial Court order permitting respondent employees (Nos. 1 to 8) to amend their unfair labour practice complaint so as to add the petitioners as party respondents, contending the amendment was allowed without affording them an opportunity of hearing; their subsequent application for deletion of their names had been rejected because the amendment averred that they too had indulged in unfair labour practice by not granting approval to the sanctioned posts. Held, dismissing the petition with no order as to costs: (i) the Assistant Government Pleader could not show that a hearing would have led to a different conclusion, nor give reasons why the amendment should not be allowed, and the amendment has relevance to the respondents' final relief; (ii) the employees - daily-wage Clerks alleging that the University denies them permanency and equal pay for equal work - having alleged via amendment that the petitioners also committed unfair labour practice by not approving the sanctioned posts (post-sanctioning being within the petitioners' domain), the petitioners' presence is necessary, and the Industrial Court correctly so held.

1 929-613-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 613/2025 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State and another Vs. Smt. Vidya Rajesh Kshirsagar and others

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP for Petitioners Ms. Lanjewar, Adv. h/f Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 8 Mrs. Kalpana Pathak, Advocate for Respondent No. 9

CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATED : 8^th JULY, 2025

In order dated 04.02.2025, the word ‘not’ appearing in fifth line in second paragraph shall be deleted. The corrections be made today itself and corrected copy be uploaded forthwith.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court, thereby permitting the respondent Nos.1 to 8 to amend the complaint and further to add petitioners as party respondents.

As such, the grievance of the petitioners was that while allowing amendment and while directing the petitioners to be added as party respondents, the Industrial Court did not afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, however, the petitioners after having being added as party respondents, filed application for deletion of their names which came to be rejected on the ground that by way of amendment the respondent Nos.1 to 8 have averred that the petitioners have also indulged in the act of unfair labour practice by not granting approval to the sanctioned posts.

Though the Assistant Government Pleader submits that this amendment has been allowed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, he could not point out as to how could

2 929-613-2025.odt

Industrial Court arrived at a different conclusion, had the petitioners been given opportunity of hearing, in the sense, the Assistant Government Pleader could not satisfy or assign reasons as to why this amendment should not be allowed. Rather, this amendment appears to me to be something which would have relevance to the respondent’s final relief.

According to the respondent employees, the University is indulged into unfair labour practice by not extending the benefit of permanency and not paying equal pay for equal work. I am informed that the respondent employees were appointed on daily wages to work as Clerks. According to the counsel for the respondent-University, the work is available but there is no post created to absorb the respondent – employees and thus to extend the benefit of permanency. This aspect of sanctioning post is within the domain of the petitioners and in that context, the respondent-employees have alleged, by way of amendment that the petitioners have also indulged into an act of unfair labour practice by not granting approval to the sanctioned post.

In that view of the matter, once the amendment is allowed, the respondent-employees are now alleging unfair labour practice by the petitioners as well, therefore, their presence is necessary. The Industrial Court thus correctly held that the petitioners presence is necessary considering the amended pleadings in the plaint.

Resultantly, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

MP Deshpande

Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/07/2025 17:58:59