KUMAR DASHRATH KAMBLE v. BOMBAY HOSPITAL
Grant of Permanency - HIV+ Status as Discriminatory Ground; Limitation on Arrears under MRTU & PULP Act; Constitutional Validity under Articles 14 & 16.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:26168
Decision Date: 23-12-2025
List of Laws
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; The Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017; The Constitution of India; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971; Model Standing Orders; Res Judicata
- Facts: Kumar Dashrath Kamble, the Petitioner, was employed as a sweeper at Bombay Hospital in 1994. In 2005, the hospital union filed a complaint (ULP No. 187/2005) seeking permanency for 188 temporary workers. A settlement was reached in December 2006, stipulating medical fitness for permanency. The Petitioner tested HIV+ and was denied permanency until intervention by the Mumbai District Aids Control Society in 2017. He then sought permanency from 2006 with consequential benefits, which the Industrial Court dismissed.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner challenged the Industrial Court's order dismissing his complaint (ULP No. 312/2018) via a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: Did the Industrial Court err in dismissing the Petitioner's complaint for permanency and consequential benefits, considering his HIV+ status and the provisions of the HIV-AIDS Act, 2017, and the principles of res judicata and delay? Furthermore, is the denial of permanency based on HIV+ status discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
- Holding: Yes, the Industrial Court erred. The High Court partly allowed the petition, directing the hospital to grant permanency from December 1, 2006, but limited actual financial benefits to 90 days before the complaint filing date.
- Reasoning: The Court found that denying permanency based on HIV+ status was discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. While the HIV-AIDS Act, 2017 is prospective, the court considered the injustice of denying similar treatment due to the Petitioner's HIV+ status. The Court also held that the principle of res judicata was wrongly applied by the Industrial Court, as the real grievance was the denial of permanency due to the HIV+ status. However, the Court applied the principle of delay and latches, limiting arrears to 90 days before the complaint filing date, citing the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, which prescribes a 90-day limitation period for unfair labor practice complaints. The Court distinguished between a continuous wrong and a recurring wrong, noting that each month of non-payment constituted a fresh cause of action, but limited the recovery period.
🔒 For Members Only