NAVI MUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA AND OTHERS vs NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL MAZDOOR UNION

Judgment text excerpt

WP.3749.2006.doc Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 2006 Navi Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Navi Mumbai Municipal Union & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge a/w. Ms. Manali Garge and Mr. Kunal Patil, Advocates for Petitioners.  Ms. Rohini Thyagarajan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. Reserved on : AUGUST 14, 2025. Pronounced on SEPTEMBER 10, 2025. JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Garge, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Ms. Thyagarajan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. Present Writ Petition challenges judgment dated 14.02.2006 passed by Industrial Court Maharashtra, Bench at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 454/2003. The judgment is appended below Exhibit ‘C’ to Page No. - 39. 3. Briefly stated, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for short “CIDCO”) handled water supply within territorial limits of Navi Mumbai. On 01.11.1999 CIDCO handed over charge of water supply to Petitioners (for short "the Corporation") responsible for administering civic services in the Navi 1 of 21 WP.3749.2006.doc Mumbai region. In order to discharge its statutory duty, water tanks fitted with pumps are installed at various locations and are operated by around 116 workmen. Respondent No. 2 Union espouses the cause of these workmen. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that these workmen were engaged by contractors appointed by Petitioner and work carried out by them is of an essential and perennial nature. These workmen have been working on the above posts as pump operators since decades. This is an admitted position. Eleven of them have even expired in the interregnum. As per the list given by the Union