Bombay High Court Service And Labour Laws Digest 2023


31 Jan 2024 3:30 AM GMT

  • Bombay High Court Service And Labour Laws Digest 2023

    1. Bombay High Court Allows Compassionate Appointment To Teacher's Brother As He Is Looking After Family Of The Deceased Case Title: Vinod v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 11 The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench carved out an exception to continue the compassionate appointment of a junior clerk after the demise of his married brother on the grounds that he...

    1. Bombay High Court Allows Compassionate Appointment To Teacher's Brother As He Is Looking After Family Of The Deceased

    Case Title: Vinod v. State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 11

    The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench carved out an exception to continue the compassionate appointment of a junior clerk after the demise of his married brother on the grounds that he was caring for his sister-in-law and nephew since 2013.

    A division bench of Justices Sandeep Shinde and Vrushali Joshi directed the Education Officer to grant his approval to continue the petitioner's service in Wadha school under the compassionate appointment category but also upheld the Scheme against the petitioner.

    According to the government resolutions dated December 31, 2002 and September 21, 2017 a married deceased's widow and child are the only persons eligible for compassionate appointment, not the dependent brother. Siblings would be considered only if the man was unmarried.

    The exceptional circumstance in the present case was that the deceased's wife had given her no objection to her brother-in-law's appointment. The bench noted that “since Petitioner is looking after family of the deceased since 2013, we think, it would not be appropriate to discontinue the Petitioner's services in the above facts and circumstances.”

    The government pleader submitted that for the scheme of compassionate appointment an unmarried man's siblings and a married person's spouse and children are only to be considered as dependents. The court upheld the scheme but directed the Education officer to make an exception.

    2. Minor Contradiction In Deposition Would Not Render Entire Evidence Unacceptable: Bombay HC Upholds MSRTC ATI's Dismissal Due To Bribery Allegation

    Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Ravindra Adhar Gosavi

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 21

    Observing that a minor contradiction in witness deposition wouldn't render the entire evidence of the witness unacceptable, the Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of an Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) of MSRTC for allegedly demanding and accepting bribe.

    Justice Sandeep V. Marne of Aurangabad bench allowed a writ petition by MSRTC challenging Labour Court's decision to quash the ATI's dismissal. There was a contradiction between the charge sheet in the domestic inquiry and the complainant's testimony about who exactly accepted the bribe amount.

    existence of minor contradiction is deposition would not render the entire evidence of a witness completely unacceptable...Considering the overall evidence of the Complainant Shri. Dhivare, it does appear probable that the Respondent not only demanded the gratification but also probably accepted the same. Whether he accepted it himself or through Shri, Kayasth is not the relevant factor”, the court said.

    3. Cannot Direct State To Consider Degree Holders For Junior Engineer Posts When Recruitment Rules Say Only Diploma Holders Eligible: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Milind Shantilal Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 66

    The Bombay High Court refused to direct the State to consider degree holders in Civil Engineering as eligible for the post of Junior Engineer in the Water Resources Department as the recruitment rules only provide for diploma in Civil Engineering or equivalent qualification.

    Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a writ petition filed by 610 Civil Engineering degree holders challenging the eligibility criteria.

    4. Minority Institution Cannot Reinstate Retired Employee Who Retained Full Retiral Benefits: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Mohammed Mussaviruddin Mohammed Naziruddin v. State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

    The Bombay High Court held that the management of a minority institution cannot act as per its whims and allow a retired employee who retained full retiral benefits to return whenever he desires.

    A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh sitting at Nagpur upheld the Education Officer's order rejecting approval for reinstatement of a retired employee as headmaster of Dr. Zakir Hussain High School, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.

    The court further observed that reinstatement on the basis of a private arrangement between the management and the employee would lead to serious uncertainty and dislodge the candidate selected on the vacancy arising out of such voluntary retirement of an employee.

    5. Eligibility Of Researcher For Any Post Determined By Acceptance Of Research Paper For Publication Rather Than Actual Publication: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Dr. Sunil s/o Nilkanth Washimkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 106

    The Bombay High Court held that only the acceptance of a research paper for publication in a journal is relevant rather than actual publication to determine the author's eligibility for any post or qualification.

    The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed that the worthiness of the paper for publication determines eligibility.

    The court set aside MPSC's decision declaring an Associate Professor ineligible for the post of Professor of Cardiology because his fourth research paper was published after the due date. The court observed that the paper had been accepted for publication before the due date.

    6. British National Jane Cox To Continue Law Practice In India After BCI Consents Before Bombay High Court, 17-Yr-Old Order Set Aside

    Case Title: Jane Cox v. Bar Council of India

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 125

    The Bombay High Court set aside a 17-year-old order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and paved the way for Advocate Jane Cox, a British citizen, to continue her legal practice in India.

    A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, set aside the 2005 order with BCI's consent but kept the question regarding a foreigner's right to practice expressly open.

    "Both sides agree that reasons are not necessary for the following order. The Bar Council of India though Mr Shekhar Jagtap states that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the impugned order of the BCI dated February 20, 2005 may be set aside, and the issue of the petitioner's right to practice be concluded in the petitioner's favour. We make rules absolute regarding prayer A and B.

    The question of law raised in the petition is expressly kept open with regard to persons other than the present petitioner," the court said.

    7. Acquittal For Cruelty Upon Wife Based On Compromise, Not Merits: Bombay High Court Says Dismissed Constable Not Entitled To 100% Backwages

    Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Surendra G. Ghodake

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 146

    The Bombay High Court held that a man whose conviction for cruelty to wife was set aside due to compromise and not merits would not be entitled to 100 percent back wages during the period of his dismissal from service.

    A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne set aside a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order granting 100 percent back wages to a constable who was convicted of cruelty but later acquitted due to compromise.

    8. "Can't Let Govt Pleaders Be Compromised": Bombay High Court Issues Bailable Warrant Against Education Officer For Unresponsiveness In Service Matter

    Case Title: Mahatarba alias Madhvkar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 193

    Taking strong exception to an education officer's un-responsiveness towards a government pleader in an education matter, the Bombay High Court issued a bailable warrant against the Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Nashik. The court set the bail amount at Rs. 15,000 payable by the officer personally.

    A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale noted that the AGP had written several emails seeking instructions to file an affidavit in the matter but the officer failed to acknowledge the email, let alone respond.

    “We refuse to let the Additional Government Pleaders at our Bar or the Government Pleader's office be compromised in this manner by serving employees of the State Government. It is not possible to accept that the AGP who appears or that the Government Pleader himself or his office can be continuously embarrassed before the Court. They have been seeking instructions since July 2022 and we are now in April 2023.”

    9. 'Iniquitous And Harsh': Bombay High Court Refuses Recovery Of Excess Amount From High School Lecturer's Widow Despite Deceased's Undertaking

    Case Title: Sudha wd/o Bhagirath Meshram v. Zilla Parishad and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 200

    Despite the employee's undertaking at the time of pay fixation to refund any excess amount paid to him, the Bombay High Court quashed an order to recover excess amount of over two lakhs from the widow of a high school lecturer.

    A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice MW Chandwani noted that the widow and her children are completely dependent on the pension of Rs. 14,250/- per month and held that it would be harsh and iniquitous to recover the amount.

    10. Bombay High Court Upholds Industrial Tribunal's Interim Order Directing Global Pharma Leader Sandoz To Re-Employ/ Pay Security To Retrenched Workers

    Case Title: Sandoz Private Limited v. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 208

    The Bombay High Court upheld an interim order against Sandoz Private Limited, a global leader in generic pharmaceuticals and biosimilars, directing it to re-employ workers it retrenched or provide security over applicable wages till pendency of the industrial complaint.

    Justice NJ Jamadar took strong exception to the manner in which Sandoz retrenched its employees a night before their matter was heard by the Industrial Court for interim reliefs.

    11. Employer Not Compulsorily Required To Sack Employee For Suppression Of Pendency Of A Criminal Prosecution: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Buddheshwar S/o Babulal Lilhare v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and Ors

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 239

    The Bombay High Court clarified that an employer is not bound to terminate an employee who suppresses the fact about the pendency of a criminal case against him.

    A division bench of Justice Rohit B Deo and Justice Anil L Pansare said that suppression by a person on a higher post which may be sensitive in nature may be on a different pedestal than suppression by a Class IV employee who is not on a sensitive post.

    The court said that other factors such as the nature of accusation and appointment on compassionate ground can be taken into consideration while deciding whether or not to terminate the employee.

    12. Private School Employee Terminated For Proven Misconduct Not Eligible For Compassionate Pension: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Nalini W/o Natthuji Shende v. State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

    The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that a private school employee terminated on proven misconduct is a dismissed employee and is not eligible to compassionate pension.

    A division bench of Justice Rohit B Deo and Justice Vrushali V Joshi dismissed a writ petition filed by a terminated private school employee, who sought compassionate pension claiming she was “removed” and not “dismissed” from service.

    Unlike the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the MEPS Rules do not envisage the removal, termination or dismissal as separate and independent penalties. There is no special significance to the expression removal or termination or dismissal in the context of the major penalty prescribed. In our considered view, an employee, who is terminated on proven charge constituting serious misconduct, is a dismissed employee, who is ineligible to compassionate pension under Rule 101(3) of the Pension Rules and the authority is absolutely right in the view taken”, the court held.

    13. Non-Teaching Staff Of Aided Social Work Colleges Entitled To Leave Encashment On Retirement: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Pramod v. State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 262

    The Bombay High Court held that on superannuation, non-teaching staff of aided social work colleges are also entitled to leave encashment under the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Rules, 1984.

    A division bench comprising Justices Rohit Deo and Vrushali Joshi allowed an Assistant Librarian's plea who was directed to return Rs. 5.2 lakh he received as leave encashment after 34 years of service.

    We have no hesitation in holding, that the petitioner and similarly situated employees are entitled to the benefit of leave encashment in view of Rule 39 of the Rules of 1984,” the bench ruled.

    This judgment assumes significance as the State stopped leave encashment for non-teaching staff on the ground that it was not specifically provided in a Government Resolution issued in 2014. The court found the State's reliance on the GR untenable.

    14. Private School Not Required To Communicate Adverse Remarks To Probationer For Terminating Services Unless Stigmatic: Bombay High Court Full Bench

    Case Title: Gramin Yuvak Vikas Shikshan Mandal Kinhi Naik and Anr. v. Shivnarayan Datta Raut and Anr.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 271

    The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that a private school management does not have to write confidential report and communicate adverse remarks to an employee appointed on probation, as such an employee has no right to the post.

    A full bench of Justices Sunil B Shukre, Avinash G Gharote, and Anil S Kilor held that maintaining a record of objective assessment of the probationer's service is sufficient compliance before terminating him under section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977.

    in the case of probationer, he has no right to his post and whose termination of service does not amount to a dismissal or removal by way of punishment, there is no requirement to initiate disciplinary proceedings or departmental enquiry to terminate the service of a probationer on the ground of unsatisfactory behaviour or performance…therefore, the objective assessment of performance, during the period of his probation by maintaining the record of such assessment under Rule 15(6) of the MEPS Rules, is sufficient. Hence, there is no requirement to write and maintain confidential report of the probationer”, the court held.

    15. CRPF | Denial Of Promotion To Differently Abled Person Who Did Not Satisfy Medical Criteria Not Discriminatory: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Shyamkumar S/o. Pandurang Wankhede v. Union of India and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 277

    Observing that satisfaction of medical eligibility conditions is necessary to ensure safety of paramilitary personnel, the Bombay High Court dismissed a differently abled candidate's plea against denial of promotion.

    The court held that denial of promotion to a differently abled person who did not satisfy the medical criteria does not mean he was discriminated against due to his disability.

    A division bench of Justice Rohit B Deo and Justice Vrushali V Joshi sitting at Nagpur dismissed a writ petition filed by a disabled CRPF employee alleging that he was discriminated against and denied promotion only due to his disability.

    16. Mere Expression 'Benefit Of Doubt' In Judgment Doesn't Mean Acquittal Was Not Honourable; Entire Reasoning Has To Be Appreciated: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Eknath Shankar Kamble v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 291

    The Bombay High Court held that just because the expression 'benefit of doubt' has been used in a judgment acquitting a person, does not mean that the acquittal was not honourable and the person is disentitled to have his suspension period treated as period of duty for the purpose of determining pension.

    Justice NJ Jamadar observed that the reasoning in the judgement has to be seen in its entirety to determine the nature of the acquittal. The bench directed the suspension period of an employee who was suspended due to bribery allegations, to be treated as period on duty.

    17. Change In Social Policy After Change In Govt Part Of Democratic Process, Not Per Se Arbitrary: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Ramhari Dagadu Shinde and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 292

    Change in social policy after change in government is part of a democratic process and cannot be charged as arbitrary or mala fide, the Bombay High Court observed.

    A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale upheld Eknath Shinde government's order cancelling appointment of two members and the chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes appointed by the Uddhav Thackeray government in 2021.

    The court held that appointments made purely on the government's discretion without following any competitive process can be cancelled by the government's executive order without giving any justification.

    18. Central Government Pensioner Not Entitled To Medical Reimbursement Beyond CGHS Rates When No Referral Memo Obtained: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Bina Saxena w/o Late Ravendra Kumar Saxena v. Union of India

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 301

    The Bombay High Court held that a retired central government employee, who did not obtain prior approval for treatment, is not entitled to medical reimbursement above Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) rates.

    A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed a widow's writ petition seeking reimbursement for the entire medical expenses incurred in her pensioner husband's treatment.

    The court relied on office memorandum dated October 5, 2016 issued by the Central Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding the reimbursement/permissions/ex-post facto approval in respect of pensioner CGHS beneficiaries. Clause (ii) of the memorandum provides that the of reimbursement for treatment without prior approval will be restricted to CGHS rates or actual expenditure, whichever is lower.

    The court noted that the petitioner did not show any administrative instruction or rule providing that any amount over CGHS rates can be reimbursed and upheld the tribunal's order.

    19. Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Librarian, Says 50% Of Her Part-Time Employment Must Be Included To Calculate Eligibility For Pension

    Case Title: Pratibha Prakash Almast and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 309

    The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench allowed pension and retirement benefits to a librarian on the ground that the service she rendered as a part-time employee before her position was confirmed cannot be ignored.

    Fifty percent of her tenure as a part-time employee should be included while assessing her eligibility for pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the bench held.

    A division bench of Justices Rohit Deo and MW Chandwani accordingly set aside the order of the Accounts Officer, Accountant General denying pension.

    20. Bombay High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order Asking State To 'Correct' ACP's DoB Two Months Before His Retirement

    Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sudhir Bhagwat Kalekar

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 315

    Observing that time limit for a government servant to change his date of birth in service records is meant to avoid uncertainty in administration, the Bombay High Court held that such requests for such change cannot be entertained at the end of someone's career.

    A division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that cases for change in date of birth filed just before retirement in order to extend service lead to chaos in the administration.

    The court set aside Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order allowing former ACP (Traffic) of South Mumbai Sudhir Kalekar's plea for changing his date of birth filed only two months before his scheduled retirement.

    21. Minimum 3 Years 'Regular Service' Mandatory For In-Service Status To NEET PG Candidates: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Dr. Sandeep S/o Ashokrao Ragade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

    The Bombay High Court held that temporary service cannot be counted while determining a medical officer's eligibility to appear as an in-service candidate in NEET PG. While temporary service can be counted for awarding grace marks to a medical officer posted in rural areas, minimum three years of permanent service is mandatory for status of in-service candidate in NEET PG, the court clarified.

    A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar sitting at Aurangabad clarified the provisions of government resolution (GR) on Regulation For Selection of In-Service Medical Officers from the cadre of Maharashtra Medical and Health Services Group - A for Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses.

    22. Tribunal Failed To Consider Roles & Responsibilities: Bombay High Court Holds Abbott's Business Manager Not 'Workman' Under Industrial Disputes Act

    Case Title: Abbott India Limited v. Dipak s/o Arunrao Deshmukh

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 339

    The Bombay High Court held that a "Therapy Business Manager" whose job involves executing business development, marketing strategies, and customer management, is not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

    Justice Avinash Gharote of the Nagpur bench was dealing with a writ petition challenging labour court's finding that one Dipak Deshmukh, employed as Therapy Business Manager at pharmaceutical company Abbott India Ltd. was a workman.

    The nature of duties which the respondent is required to perform in terms of the order of appointment and those specifically enumerated in Annexure-II above clearly indicate that the employment of the respondent is neither to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”, the court observed.

    23. Don't Insist On Succession Certificate For Compensation To Deceased Sewage Workers' Kin When There Is No Dispute Among Claimants: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Shramik Janta Sangh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 344

    The Bombay High Court directed the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) not to insist on heirship/succession certificates for grant of compensation to kin of sewage workers who died while cleaning sewers/septic tanks, in cases where there are no disputes among the claimants.

    A division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sandeep V. Marne passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Shramik Janta Sangh highlighting the delay in payment of compensation to the family members of deceased sewage workers.

    24. Principal Employer Not Liable For Interest/ Penalty On Delayed Compensation For Accident/ Death Of Contractor's Employee: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and Anr. v. Suraiyya Rafik Khalifa and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 353

    The Bombay High Court held that the principal employer's liability in case of accidental death/injury of contractor's employee is limited to the compensation amount under Section 12 of the Employee Compensation Act and does not include penalty and interest for default.

    “...for failure to comply with statutory obligation on the part of the employer he can be saddled with additional liability to pay interest and penalty, however the principal employer, who is made liable to pay compensation by extended arm under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the interest and penalty”, the court observed.

    Justice SG Chapalgaonkar of the Aurangabad bench, while upholding over 6 Lakhs compensation granted to kin of driver who died of cardiac arrest while on duty, observed that driving tanker to deliver water to villages is a mentally and physically stressful job.

    25. No Reservation To Post Of College Principal: Bombay High Court Paves Way For Recruitment Of Principal At Law College In Aurangabad

    Case Title: Marathwada Legal and General Education Society, Aurangabad v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 365

    The Bombay High Court reiterated that no reservation mandated by the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2021 (Act of 2021) is applicable to the post of principal in colleges.

    A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme sitting at Aurangabad held that a Government Resolution dated September 23, 2016, excluding the post of principal from reservation prevails over the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, that provides for reservation for teachers.

    26. Non-Payment Of Pension Once Court Quashed Employee's Termination Unfair Labour Practice Even If Court Didn't Explicitly Order Payment Of Pension: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Commissioner, Kolhapur Mahanagarpalika v. Shashikala Vijay Bhore

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 401

    The Bombay High Court imposed cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation for making a 73-year-old retired staff nurse to litigate for 15 years for her pension and pensionary benefits.

    Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed a writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation challenging Industrial Court's order to deposit the pension amount due to Shashikala Vijay Bhore, a staff nurse who retired in 2008.

    The court held that since Bhore's dismissal was overturned, once she retired, she became entitled to pension and pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules. The court noted that Item 9 of the Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act enlists unfair labour practice of failure to implement an award. Once Labour court passed an order setting aside her termination, the Municipal Corporation should have granted her pension and other pensionary benefits, the court reasoned. In that sense, the non-payment of pension would be covered by Item 9, the court said.

    27. Bombay High Court Passes Interim Order For Reinstatement Of 17 Govt Hospital Doctors Pending Retirement Age Dispute

    Case Title: Dr. Mahendra Vilas Phalke And Ors vs State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 476

    The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to at least 17 doctors and directed the Maharashtra Government to reinstate them in government hospitals till they complete 60 years of age. The order, however, would be subject to the final outcome of the petition.

    The doctors alleged they were forcefully relieved from their services of 30-35 years owing to the misinterpretation of a 2022 government notification.

    Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 specified the retirement age of government servants such as the Petitioners as 58 years. However, owing to the dearth of Medical officers, the Public Health Department issued a resolution on August 29, 2018 and decided to extend the age of retirement to 60 years. It was further resolved that an amendment would be made to the Rules. The amendment finally came to effect on February 23, 2023. However, the proviso in the said notification said its effect will be only till May 31, 2023 which resulted in such doctors being relieved from their respective posts.

    28. Bombay High Court Grants Compensation To BATA Salesmen Fired For Opposing Showrooms Opening 7 Days A Week With Extended Hours

    Case Title: Kiran P. Pawar v. Bata India Ltd.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 512

    The Bombay High Court awarded compensation ranging from 19.5 lakhs to 33 lakhs to seven former salesmen of shoe company Bata who were terminated in 2007 after refusing to adhere to modified roster for operating showrooms seven days a week with extended hours.

    Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that they were terminated without any enquiry but refused to reinstate them observing that 16 years have elapsed since their termination, and they may not be able to discharge duties as salesman effectively. The court awarded a compensation of 75 percent of the back wages for last 16 years.

    The court considered the various duties and responsibilities outlined in the standing orders and regulations formulated by Bata, outlining the diverse tasks assigned to the salesmen, including customer service, preparation of cash memo, stock management, cash handling, administrative duties, quality control, and other shop-related responsibilities. The court concluded that these multifaceted duties indicate that the salesmen can be considered "workmen" under the provisions of the ID Act.

    29. Octroi Department Employees Of Municipal Corp Have No Vested Right To Commission On Fee Collected From Evaders: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Municipal Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Ashish Laxman Chavan

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 516

    The Bombay High Court held that employees posted in the Octroi department of a Municipal Corporation do not have any right to receive commission (Mushahira) on compromise fee collected by the department from Octroi evaders.

    Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that the employees cannot demand commission for performing their duties of apprehending evading vehicles and collecting Octroi.

    The employees of Octroi Department perform their duties in apprehending vehicles evading Octroi. For performing their duties, they cannot demand any incentives in the form of commission on the Octroi so collected…no right is vested in the employee of Octroi Department of the Municipal Corporation to claim any amount towards Mushahira from the Municipal Corporation”, the court held.

    30. Explanation For Each Day Of Delay Not Required For Condonation Of Delay In Filing A Case: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport v. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 544

    Bombay High Court held that explanation for each day of delay is not required to condone the delay in filing a case when broad reasons sufficient as per SC guidelines are given in the delay condonation application.

    Justice Milind Jadhav upheld condonation of delay of over 5 years by a labour union in filing a complaint against BEST challenging termination observing that the union had sufficiently explained the delay before the labour court.

    By objecting to the delay, rather reasons for the delay, these workers will be deprived of their legitimate right of getting their complaint adjudicated. Insistence by the Petitioner that delay has to be explained for each day of delay cannot be countenanced…In view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, explanation for day-to-day delay is not necessarily to be given. Broadly the reasons for the delay are mentioned and they cannot be disbelieved”, the court observed.

    31. 'Supreme Court Direction Must Be Implemented': High Court Directs Maharashtra Govt To Regularize Employment Of 'Court Managers'

    Case Title: Harish B. Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 565

    The Bombay High Court directed the State Government to implement a 2018 direction of the Supreme Court in “All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India,” which directed the regularisation of employment of Court Managers responsible for handling the administration of all courts across Maharashtra.

    Court Managers are MBA graduates whose assistance in administration is meant to assist judges in devoting more time to judicial functioning and enhancing the efficiency of judicial systems. The managers can also help identify weaknesses and recommend workable steps under the supervision of the judges.

    After the matter came up before a division bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain the court directed the State government to decide on High Court's 2019 proposal.

    “We may also observe that it would not be permissible for the State Government, to not take a decision on the regularization proposal on any conditions which are extraneous to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, and the orders passed by the Supreme Court are required to be implemented in letter and spirit,' it observed.

    32. Bombay High Court Denies Regularisation To Senior Citizen Under Employment Guarantee Scheme, Enhances Compensation Due To 37 Yrs Of Litigation

    Case Title: Ashok Bhikanrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 566

    Observing that workers under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) are not entitled to continued employment or regularisation, the Bombay High Court refused to grant absorption in service to a 60-year-old man who worked for two years under EGS as a Mustering Assistant.

    A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad observed, “…workers working on the EGS are not a part of the process of recruitment and they neither have a right for continued employment, nor can they file ULP complaints under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 for claiming regularisation or permanency, nor can they raise an Industrial Dispute on account of being discontinued from the EGS.”

    The court, while dismissing the man's writ petition, granted compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioner considering that he had been litigating for 37 years and was now 60 years of age.

    The petitioner, one Ashok Deshmukh, sought absorption under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 01, 1995, for absorption of Mustering Assistants in Government services.

    33. Court Cannot Rewrite Criteria Set By Expert Body: Bombay High Court Upholds Physical Education Degree Holders' Eligibility As Sports Coaches

    Case Title: Dadaso Balaso Awad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 577

    The Bombay High Court upheld an advertisement by Directorate of Sports and Youth Services allowing degree holders in Physical Education and State-level sportspersons to compete for the Sports Coach positions.

    A division bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by sports coaches Dadaso Balaso Awad and Yogesh Prakash More praying that only diploma holders from NIS should be considered for the post of Sports Coach.

    This Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it deal with the issue of whether the desirable qualifications is on par with the prescribed other qualification. This would amount to re-writing the advertisement by the Court which is not permissible. Question of equivalence/non-equivalence will also fall outside the domain of the Court”, the court held.

    34. Such Acts Must Be Nipped In The Bud: Bombay High Court Upholds Termination Of Employee Over Provocative Facebook Posts

    Case Title: Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirajkumar Prabhakarrao Kadu

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 584

    The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of an employee of Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd., an auto parts manufacturer, who was fired over provocative posts on Facebook.

    Justice Milind N Jadhav observed –

    Freedom of speech and expression cannot be allowed to be transgressed beyond reasonableness. If that is allowed, it could lead to disastrous consequences. In a given case, one cannot and should not wait for the consequences to occur. Such acts itself are required to be nipped in the bud. Otherwise it would convey a wrong signal to the society at large.”

    The court allowed a writ petition filed by Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. against an order dated May 31, 2023 of the Labour Court, Pune setting aside the charge-sheet and enquiry against the employee as illegal.

    35. Eviction Of Air India Employees Due To Privatisation Cannot Be Termed An Industrial Dispute: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 138

    Holding that Air India employees were granted accommodation on leave and license and not as a matter of right, the Bombay High Court held that eviction of employees due to privatisation cannot be termed an Industrial dispute.

    A division bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by employee unions of Air India challenging the Central Government's refusal to refer the dispute to the industrial tribunal.

    36. Maratha Candidates Who Applied For Govt Jobs Under SEBC In 2019 Can Be Considered Under EWS Category: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Akshay Ashok Chaudhari and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 604

    The Bombay High Court set aside the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) February 2023 order barring candidates from the Maratha community from being considered for government jobs under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category in the recruitment processes of 2019.

    A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamadar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande upheld the state government's decision to allow candidates who initially applied under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) in 2019, to switch to the EWS category during the ongoing recruitment process.

    The court highlighted the one-time situation created after the Supreme Court struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018 (SEBC Act), leading to government resolutions extending the EWS quota to candidates who had initially applied under through SEBC category.

    The court noted that no alteration occurred in EWS reservation and the original EWS candidates had not been disqualified, they just had to compete with a larger pool of candidates when the state allowed SEBC candidates to apply under EWS. The SEBC candidates still had to produce due EWS certificates to be eligible under EWS category, the court said.

    Next Story