Bombay High Court: In the present petition, the petitioners, 22 “Van Majoor” (Forest Labourers) in Group ‘D’ category from Sanjay Gandhi National Park challenged the Industrial Court’s dismissal of their Unfair Labour Practice (‘ULP’) Complaint seeking permanency. The Forest Department had alleged that petitioners were daily wage labourers, not Van Majoors, and were employed as temporary workers. A Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., while allowing the petition, held that there was substantial material evidence available on record to prove that the petitioners had worked with the Forest Department for long and could not be denied their legitimate benefit. The Court emphasised that the situation clearly amounted to exploitation of the petitioners, as they had been engaged in performing their daily work alongside permanent employees of the Forest Department.
Background:
22 “Van Majoor” (Forest Labourers) in Group ‘D’ category in the capacity of Labourers, Watchman, Cook and Gardener since 2003 onwards in Sanjay Gandhi National Park were petitioners before the Court. They had been working continuously without break in highly risky job situations, cleaning cages of wild animals like tiger, lion, leopard and hyena, cutting meat, feeding, nursing, and providing medicines, along with other incidental duties. Due to their long-standing engagement, the animals had become familiar with them, rendering their roles indispensable. After decades of service, they sought permanency status, which was denied. A collective ULP Complaint of 2016 filed by 77 workmen was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 12-12-2022, and the dismissal was challenged by 22 workmen individually before this Court.
The Forest Department contended that the petitioners were daily wage labourers and not Van Majoors, and were not confined to any specific work or area within the park. They were employed as temporary workers and assigned various tasks such as patrolling, extinguishing forest fires, attending guest houses, watch duties, cleaning public areas, and assisting in removal of encroachments. Their appointments were not made through any selection process, nor were they against sanctioned posts, and no qualifications or interviews were prescribed at the time of engagement.
It was submitted that the petitioners’ claim was based on completion of 240 working days annually and not in accordance with the applicable Government Resolution (‘GR’). An Additional Affidavit dated 11-09-2023 clarified that the 125 ‘super-numerary’ posts created under the GR dated 16-10-2012 applied only to casual workers employed between 01-11-1994 and 30-06-2004 who had completed five consecutive years of service with 240 working days annually. These posts were filled due to superannuation, death, resignation, or removal, and no vacancies remained to accommodate the petitioners.
The Forest Department therefore submitted that the judgment dismissing the petitioners’ claim be upheld, as their appointments were not regular and no sanctioned posts were available for granting permanency.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the original complaint was filed by the Union on behalf of 77 similarly placed employees. Consequently, the judgment recorded that two employees stood deleted and two expired in the interregnum. The Court noted that the Industrial Court, by its judgment dated 12-12-2022, dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the Union failed to adduce material showing sanctioned and vacant posts against which the workmen could be accommodated as permanent employees which was the chief reason for dismissal.
The Court examined the record and observed that the petitioners and similarly placed workmen had worked for 240 working days continuously for more than five years in various capacities such as watchman, peon, driver, Van Majdoor, clerk, gardener, cook, and in guest houses and nurseries, where the dates of joining ranged from 1993 to 2015. The Court further noted that they were paid wages, worked alongside regular employees, and their attendance was marked by the Forester as per instructions from the Range Forest Officer, where they were assigned, high-risk duties also performed by permanent employees, and their service record was clean and unblemished.
The Court highlighted that these facts were proved by material evidence placed on record before the Industrial Court, where the workmen had been working for several decades in Sanjay Gandhi National Park alongside permanent employees and were treated as such, while they were employed in high-risk situations with minimal facilities or safety equipment.
The Court emphasised that there was no difference of opinion that Petitioners’ services were the same as those of permanent employees. Hence, the Court opined that they could not be discriminated. The Court further noted that the reasoning adopted by the Industrial Court for denying permanent status on the ground of absence of sanctioned posts was not acceptable, since accepting such reasoning would amount to continued exploitation, depriving them of benefits like permanency, earned leave, medical facilities, and coverage under social welfare enactments.
The Court remarked that the rationale that there were no sanctioned permanent posts vacant or available and therefore exploitation as casual workers should continue irrespective of tenure could not be accepted. The Court noted that once Petitioners had complied with the twin conditions of 240 days of work in each calendar year continuously for 5 years and were still being continued by the Forest Department, they could not be deprived of permanent status on the ground of unavailability of sanctioned post.
The Court observed that accepting the Government’s argument would amount to enslavement and bonded labour, and the Court could not be a mute spectator. The Court further highlighted that the situation amounted to exploitation, as Petitioners had worked alongside permanent employees and substantial material evidence proved their long tenure.
The Court examined the letter issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests to the Principal Secretary, which referred to 8038 forest workers regularised pursuant to Government order dated 31-01-1996, where Paragraph 21 of the letter depicted salary details and sought sanction. The Court further observed that the letter also sought creation of 12991 posts, showing that the role of forest workers was indispensable, and that Petitioners were part of them.
Holding the Industrial Court’s approach unsustainable, the Court quashed the order dated 12-12-2022 and therefore allowed the complaint. The Court further directed the State to compute the outstanding differential wages for the petitioners granted permanency within 8 weeks, make payments within 2 weeks thereafter, and file a compliance report after 10 weeks. The Court, thus, allowed and disposed of the petition.
[Rahul Pittu Savalkar v. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3077, decided on 03-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Vaishali Jagdale, Advocate
For the Respondents: J.P. Patil, AGP
