(Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Sudhir Kamalakar Ayachit Etc. _____________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Maharashtra State Electricity Board __________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3480-3483 of 2026, decided on March 17, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The appellants claimed to have been appointed as telephone operators in the year 1982 and continued till their attaining the age of superannuation. The appellants approached the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Aurangabad with a petition under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘MRTU & PULP Act’). The respondent did not dispute their engagement but claimed that initially they were appointed under a Contractor on 09.11.1982 and from 1984, they were continued on the basis of a contract with them directly.
2. The Superintending Engineer, who was their Controlling Officer had sought for sanction of two posts of Telephone Operators, granted only in 1996 which also stood abolished in the year 2007. The Industrial Court found that they were continued without break and since there were two posts sanctioned in the year 1996 at least from that date they should be regularized. It was directed that the applicants would be given permanent status with effect from 04.06.1996 and the consequential monetary benefits will also be paid.
3. On a challenge taken to the High Court, the award was reversed finding that there is no question of permanency when no post exists.
4. Sri. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that admittedly they were continued from 1982 and despite sanction of two posts, regularisation was not granted. Their engagement from 1982 is undisputed.
5. Sri. Dhruv Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent produced a letter dated 14.8.2001 across the Bar, which is said to have specifically informed the appellants that there is no vacancy sanctioned and existing.
6. We are unable to accept the recitals in the letter produced before us especially since the Tribunal had clearly found that there was a sanction of four posts of Telephone Operators in the year 1996 to which none were appointed since there was a ban on recruitment, which posts also stood abolished in 2007. In any event, as has been rightly pointed out, the engagement of the appellants is not disputed and they were working as Telephone Operators from 1982 onwards, first under a Contractor and then engaged directly by the department. Both the appellants were continued till they attained the age of superannuation.
7. The application was filed under the MRTU & PULP Act wherein allegations were raised under item Nos. 2,6,9 and 10 of Schedule I. Unfair Labour Practice is defined under the Act as those practices detailed in Section 26 which provision refers to Schedule II, III and IV. Item No. 6 in Schedule IV specifically refers to employment as ‘badli’ or casual or temporary and continuance as such for years, with the object of depriving the status and privileges of a permanent employee. The claim raised by the appellants squarely falls under the Act.
8. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the award passed directing regularization from 04.06.1996 and payment of arrears after fixing their pay in the regular scales as applicable to Telephone Operators under the respondents. Every consequence arising on the retirement of a permanent employee, as per the extant rules, will enure to the benefit of the appellants. We also sustain the compensation directed of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and the cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellants herein.
9. The appeals are allowed in the aforestated terms.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
