Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5712 OF 2005 Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society ...Petitioner V/s. Yeshwant Maruti Bhandare and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1514 OF 2006 Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society ...Petitioner V/s. Dhananjay Suryakant Naik and Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1515 OF 2006 Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society ...Petitioner V/s. Krishankant Dattatraya Dandekar and Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1516 OF 2006 Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society ...Petitioner V/s. Page No. 1 of 7 31 July 2026 2026:BHC-AS:31951 Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group Yeshwant Maruti Bhandare and Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.586 OF 2007 Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana, Mumbai ...Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Rajesh Gehani and Mr. Mahendra Agvekar with Ms. Shraddha Chavan i/b. Mr. Rajesh Gehani for the Petitioner in WP/5712/2005, WP/1516/2006, WP/1515/2006 and WP/1514/2006. Mr. Prakash Devdas with Ms. Vidula Patil and Ms. Mansi Kanitkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP/5712/2005, and for Respondent No.1 in remaining Writ Petitions and for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.586/2007. Mr. Santosh Parad for Respondent-BMC. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 31 JULY 2026. P.C.: 1) These @ve Petitions arise out of engagement of Mr. Yeshwant Bhandare, Mr. Dhananjay Naik and Mr. Krishankant Dandekar (the three employees) in a project named India Population Project V (the Project), which was implemented by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) through various Non-Government Organisations. The Page No. 2 of 7 31 July 2026 Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group concerned NGO in respect of the three employees is the Petitioner - Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society (the NGO). Since the Project came to an end on 28 February 1997, services of the three employees were to be terminated. Those three employees @led Complaint (ULP) No.85 of 1997 challenging their termination. During pendency of the Complaint, the Labour Court granted interim stay on termination. It is the case of the said three employees that on the strength of the interim stay granted by the Labour Court they continued to work but were not paid wages. Therefore Application (IDA) Nos.1196, 1197 and 1198 of 1997 were @led by the trio under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( ID Act) for recovery of wages for the period from March 1997 to November-1997. For the next period December-1997 to November-1998, the said three employees @led second set of Applications under Section 33(C)-2 of the ID Act, which were numbered as Application (IDA) Nos.803, 804 and 805 of 1998. All the six applications @led under Section 33(C)-2 of the ID Act came to be allowed by the Labour Court by separate orders directing the NGO to pay the wages for the periods from March-1997 to November-1997 and from December-1997 to November-1998. 2) The Petitioner-NGO has accordingly @led Writ Petition Nos.5712 of 2005 challenging the order dated 11 May 2005 passed in Application (IDA) Nos.1196 of 1997, 1197 of 1997 and 1198 of 1997. In respect of the orders passed by the Labour Court on 21 October 2005 in Application (IDA) Nos.803, 804 and 805 of 1998, the NGO has @led Writ Petition Nos.1516, 1515 and 1514 of 2006. Page No. 3 of 7 31 July 2026 Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group 3) In the meantime, Complaint (ULP) No.85 of 1997 came to be dismissed by the Labour Court by order dated 28 February 2006. Three employees @led Revision Application (ULP) No.119 of 2006 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. Four Writ Petitions being Writ Petition Nos.5712 of 2005, 1514 of 2006, 1515 of 2006 and 1516 of 2006 @led by the NGO came up before this Court during pendency of the Revision. On 6 June 2007 this Court passed following order:- Heard the learned counsel for quiet some time. Perused the order passed in Writ Petition No.5712/05 so also interim order passed in Writ Petition Nos.1514, 1515 and 1516 of 2006 dated 7.11.2006. Issue Rule in these three writ petitions. Ad-interim order dated 7.11.2006 shall continue subject to condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court in 33 C-2 application. It will not be out of place to mention that the complaint No.85/97 @led by the respondent- employees has been dismissed by the Labour Court vide its judgment dated 28.2.2006 and the employees have @led revision before the Industrial Court wherein interim order has been passed on 5.6.2006 granting stay to the termination. Unless and until employees succeed in the complaint they will not claim the amount deposited in this Court pursuant to the interim order passed. In the peculiar circumstances of the present petitions I deem it appropriate to direct the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai to @nally hear and decide Revision Application No.119/06. Both the learned counsel appearing for respective parties assure this Court of their cooperation for expeditious disposal of the revision. I hope and trust that the Industrial Court will decide the said revision as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from today. Leave is granted to the parties to move this Court for @nal disposal of writ petitions after the judgment is delivered by Industrial Court in revision application before it. 4) Thus, the Petitioner-NGO was directed to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court in this Court with an observation that withdrawal of the said amount would be dependent on outcome of the revision. To the bad luck of the three employees, Revision Page No. 4 of 7 31 July 2026 Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group Application (ULP) No.119 of 2006 came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court by its judgment on 1 October 2007. Challenging the judgment and order dated 1 October 2007 three employees alongwith Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari, Mumbai @led Writ Petition No.8889 of 2007, which was rejected by this Court by order dated 5 December 2007. 5) Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 is @led by Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana, Mumbai, challenging order dated 20 June 2005 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.1058 of 2002, which was @led by the said Union on behalf of 60 workmen relating to the Project in question. Writ Petition has been admitted by this Court on 28 January 2008 without granting any interim relief. All the @ve Petitions are called out for @nal hearing. 6) I have heard Mr. Gehani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-NGO, Mr. Devdas, the learned counsel appearing for three employees and Mr. Parad, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent -MCGM. 7) As aforesaid, the engagement of the three employees was project speci@c. The project in question (Indian Population Project V) has admittedly come to an end on 28 February 1997. Therefore, there is no question of any opportunity for reinstatement of three employees. It also appears that all the three employees have now crossed the age of retirement. Mr. Devdas has fairly admitted this position. Since Petition was admitted without grant of interim relief, three employees have not worked during pendency of the Petitions. In my view, therefore, nothing Page No. 5 of 7 31 July 2026 Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group remains to be adjudicated in Writ Petition No.586 of 2007, which deserves to be dismissed. 8) In Writ Petition No.5712 of 2005 @led by the NGO, which challenges order for payment of wages during March 1997 to November- 1997 and Writ Petition No.1514, 1515 and 1516 of 2005 relating to payment of wages from December-1997 to November-1998, ordinarily, this Court would have set aside orders passed by the Labour Court since the Complaint (ULP) Nos.85 of 1997 has been dismissed, revision against the order of the Labour Court is also dismissed and I have today dismissed the Writ Petition No.586 of 2007. Ordinarily, interim order merges into the @nal order. However, by interim order, the three employees were permitted to continue in services and it is their claim that they have actually worked during March-1997 to November -1998. In my view, therefore, slight departure needs to be made from usual settled principle of merger of interim order into the @nal order and in my view at least 50% wages in respect of the said period needs to be paid to those three employees. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court on 6 June 2007, the NGO has already deposited 50% of wages in respect of the period March -1997 to November-1998. In my view the three workers can be permitted to withdraw the said deposited amount alongwith accrued interest. This would put an end to the long litigation by the parties. 9) I accordingly, proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 is dismissed. Page No. 6 of 7 31 July 2026 Megha 28_wp_5712_2005 group (ii) Writ Petition Nos.5712 of 2005 and 1514 of 2006, 1515 of 2006 and 1516 of 2006 are partly allowed to the extent of denial of 50% wages from March-1997 to November-1998 to the concerned three employees. (iii) Three employees are permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited in this Court alongwith accrued interest. 10) With the above directions, all the @ve Petitions are disposed of. Rule is discharged in Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 and Rule is made partly absolute in Writ Petition Nos.5712 of 2005, 1514 of 2006, 1515 of 2006 and 1516 of 2006. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 7 of 7 31 July 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/08/2026 15:34:30