Case Details: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karyalayeen Karmachari Sanghtana [2026] 184 taxmann.com 639 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Amit Borkar, J.
-
Ram S. Apte, Sr. Adv. & D.R. Kawale for the Petitioner.
-
Prakash Devdas & Ms Vidula Patil for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, employees of the petitioner Municipal Corporation were placed on promotional posts on an ad hoc basis due to the non-availability of suitable candidates from reserved categories.
Subsequently, upon availability of vacancies, the employees were regularised. The employees thereafter filed a complaint before the Industrial Court seeking continuity of service and consequential seniority from the date of their initial ad hoc promotion, along with recognition of such service as qualifying service for the purposes of Time Bound Promotion/Assured Career Progression.
The Industrial Court held that the Corporation had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV by denying continuity of service despite allowing the employees to work on promotional posts for several years with attendant benefits. It further noted that the retrospective imposition of a one-day technical break for the period 2004–2006 was unjustified. Accordingly, the Industrial Court directed the Corporation to grant continuity of service with consequential seniority and to recognise such service for limited purposes.
High Court Held
The High Court observed that since the employees had in fact discharged duties on promotional posts for a considerable period and had been granted benefits attached to such posts, the period of service from the date of initial ad hoc promotion could not be disregarded. It held that such service deserved recognition, at least for limited purposes such as seniority and Time Bound Promotion/Assured Career Progression.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld and confirmed the order passed by the Industrial Court.
List of Cases Referred to
- Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India [1999] 2 SCC 119 (para 13)
- Union of India v. V. N. Bhat 2003 taxmann.com 4069 (SC) (para 13)
- Union of India v. M. Mathivanan 2006 taxmann.com 2685 (SC) (para 13).
The post Ad Hoc Promotion Service Counts for Seniority – Break Held Unfair | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
