Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement of 53 Hospital Workers, Sets Aside Tribunal’s Compensation-Only Relief.


07-August-2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a major ruling related to the rights of workers of municipal contracts, the Bombay High Court has ordered the reinstatement of 53 employees who worked at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital, Kalwa, operated by the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC). The employees, who were hired as sweepers, aayas, and ward boys, had been dismissed in 1995 without notice and compensation.

The case originated in Reference (IT) No. 41 of 2005, ordered by the Industrial Tribunal, Thane, which in 2019 had ruled that these employees were indeed Corporation employees and their services were illegally terminated. Despite confirming these vital conclusions, though, the Tribunal refused reinstatement and back salaries and granted only a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1 lakh per worker—citing the long gap of time (14 years) between the dismissal and the order.

 

 

This led to two cross writ petitions before the High Court:

Writ Petition No. 2644 of 2020, petitioned by the workers' union for denial of reinstatement and back wages; and
Writ Petition No. 10432 of 2023, petitioned by the Thane Municipal Corporation challenging the Tribunal's conclusion that the workers were employees of the Corporation.

Workers' Standpoint:

Union advocate Ms. Cox contended that after the Tribunal had finally concluded that the workers were employees of the Corporation and their dismissal was unlawful, there should have been reinstatement with benefits. The conclusions that the workers were not hired on behalf of the alleged contractor and no legal labour license could be found further supported their cause.

Corporation's Perspective:

Senior Counsel Mr. Apte, who represented TMC, argued that the workers were hired by a contractor and not the Corporation, and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. He also stated that as there were no sanctioned posts and the hiring did not go through the statutory recruitment process, they could not be considered permanent workers.

Court's Observations:

The High Court observed some points in the favour of the workers:
  • Their names were included in ward attendance registers along with permanent hospital staff.
  • Supervisors, nurses, and matrons of the Hospital personally supervised their work.
  • Witnesses for the Corporation conceded that the workers conducted essential hospital tasks like permanent employees.
  • Most importantly, no documentary proof was presented to establish the existence of the purported contractor and its license under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
The Court held the Industrial Tribunal's logic of awarding compensation alone on grounds of mere delay in disposal of the reference to be unsound. It noted that "delay in adjudication cannot be charged against the workmen in excluding them from their legitimate reliefs."

Final Directions:

Amending the Tribunal's order, the Court directed:
  • Reinstatement of eligible employees within a week, but without arrears of wages or previous continuity of service. They will, however, be qualified for retirement benefits as per law.
  • Employees who have passed the superannuation age or have died in the interregnum will not be reinstated; their legal heirs or themselves will instead get lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakh each.
  • The previous grant of Rs. 1 lakh compensation for each worker is hereby deleted and substituted with the above instructions.
  • The onus of identification of eligible workmen and claiming compensation has been given to the Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Medical College and the TMC.
Thus, the Court granted Writ Petition No. 2644 of 2020 (Union) up to the extent of reinstatement or enhanced compensation and dismissed Writ Petition No. 10432 of 2023 (Corporation).

Stay on Judgment:

On the request of the counsel of TMC, the Court stayed the operation of its order for four weeks, thereby allowing the Corporation to move to a higher court.

Conclusion:

This judgment emphasizes the precept that protracted litigation cannot weaken workers' rights when employers themselves do not provide legitimate proof to neutralize their complaints. Through the reinstatement or upgrading of compensation, the High Court reiterated that justice in employment cannot be traded for judicial delay.


Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971