Casual Labourers’ Absorption as Temporary Navghanys Upheld

Case Details: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Bombay Electric Workers' Union - [2026] 187 taxmann.com 802 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Vishal Talsania & Ms. Heena Shaikh for the Petitioner.
A.V. Bukhari, Sr. Adv. & K.S. Shetty for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner–undertaking, a statutory utility engaged in electricity distribution and public transport services, engaged workers known as Navghanys for excavation work required for laying electric cables. Since permanent posts for Navghanys were limited, additional manpower was engaged as casual labourers and temporary Navghanys, with eventual absorption as permanent Navghanys depending on the availability of posts.
On 1-8-2012, the petitioner and the respondent-union executed an agreement providing that casual labourers who had worked for more than three years would be absorbed as temporary Navghanys in a phased manner, subject to application of the reservation roster. The agreement remained in force up to 31-3-2016.

The respondent-union filed Complaint (ULP) No. 277 of 2014 seeking implementation of clause 14 of the agreement. By order dated 15-10-2019, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, held that the petitioner had engaged in an unfair labour practice, and directed that 968 casual labourers who had completed more than three years’ service before 1-8-2012 be absorbed or treated as temporary Navghanys with effect from 31-3-2016.
The Industrial Court further directed payment of the difference of wages and allowances from 31-3-2016 and excluded from relief those labourers who had already been absorbed. On writ petition before the High Court.

It was noted that clause 14 of Agreement dated 1-8-2012, casual labourers who had worked for more than three years were to be absorbed as temporary Navghanys in a phased manner. The Industrial Court directed absorption of 968 eligible casual labourers as temporary Navghanys with effect from 31-3-2016.

Further, clause 14 contemplated absorption of all eligible casual labourers irrespective of availability or creation of vacancies and conferred upon them a right to such absorption upon completion of three years’ service.
The High Court observed that reading a vacancy condition into clause 14 would be contrary to its express terms and defeat the right conferred under agreement. Further, the Industrial Court’s direction for retrospective absorption from 31-3-2016 warranted no interference.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the conferment of temporary status upon eligible casual labourers did not require existence or creation of vacancies and was intended to place them on par with employees performing the same duties and responsibilities. Further, the Industrial Court was justified in directing the cessation of the unfair labour practice and the grant of wage and allowance benefits with effect from 31-3-2016. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order was warranted.