UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI (THROUGH REGISTRAR MUMBAI UNIVERSITY) v. AMIT S. BAGUL
Industrial Court Jurisdiction over Pendente Lite Termination and Application of Limitation Period for Wage Arrears and Backwages in University Employment.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6573
Decision Date: 13-03-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016; Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work; Law of Limitation for Recurring Causes of Action; Service Jurisprudence - Backwages and Gainful Employment
- Facts: The Respondents, 64 temporary employees of the University of Mumbai, were engaged in various roles such as clerks, assistants, and peons for periods ranging from one to fourteen years. They filed a complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act seeking permanency and equal pay. Simultaneously with the filing, the University issued a circular on 30 June 2017 discontinuing their services, citing the end of their six-month tenure. The Industrial Court found that the University engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 6, Schedule IV of the Act, and directed reinstatement with full backwages and pay equal to the lowest grade of regular employees from the date of joining.
- Procedural Posture: The University filed Writ Petition No. 3962 of 2025 challenging the final judgment of the Industrial Court dated 28 November 2023. A connected Writ Petition No. 2556 of 2019, which challenged an interlocutory review order, was heard analogously.
- Issue: 1. Does the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to order reinstatement when termination occurs during the pendency of a complaint for permanency? 2. Are temporary employees entitled to regular pay scales from their date of joining despite the statutory period of limitation? 3. Is the grant of 100% backwages sustainable in the absence of pleadings or evidence regarding lack of gainful employment?
- Holding: 1. Yes, the Industrial Court has jurisdiction if termination occurs pendente lite. 2. No, arrears of wages are restricted by the 90-day limitation period under the MRTU and PULP Act. 3. No, full backwages cannot be granted without proof of no gainful employment, particularly for educational institutions.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Industrial Court's jurisdiction is preserved when termination is used to frustrate a pending complaint, following the precedent in "University of Mumbai v. Parag Bhaskar Ghag". However, it held the Industrial Court's wage directions "defied logic" by granting regular pay from the date of joining (some as far back as 2003) for a 2017 complaint. Applying "Tarsem Singh" and "M.R. Gupta", the Court distinguished between a "continuing wrong" (permanency) and a "recurring wrong" (wage payment), limiting wage arrears to 90 days prior to the complaint. Regarding backwages, the Court applied "Management of Regional Chief Engineer v. Their Workmen", noting that since the Respondents failed to plead or prove they were not gainfully employed, and given the University's status as an educational body, 100% backwages was excessive. The Court reduced backwages to 50% for the period they did not work.
🔒 For Members Only