65 WP No.260.2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2014 THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AHMEDNAGAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS SOMNATH SOPAN PAWAR *** AGP for the Petitioners-State : Mr. V. M. Jaware Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Shivaji T. Shelke *** CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 24th August, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 12.11.2010 rendered by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 227/2000. The petitioners also challenged the order dated 07.02.2013 rendered by the Industrial Court dismissing Review Application (ULP) No. 1/2011. 2. The respondent presented a complaint before the Industrial Court contending that respondent joined the Petitioner - ‘Seed Multiplication Centre’ as a labourer on 09.07.1988 and worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year, however, the petitioners deliberately gave technical breaks to deny the benefits of permanency while regularising junior employees. 2026:BHC-AUG:38963 65 WP No.260.2014 -2- 3. The petitioners appeared and presented a written statement and resisted the claim. The Industrial Court declared that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and directed to forward a proposal to the State Government for the creation of new posts to accommodate the respondent. 4. The learned AGP for the petitioners-State submits that the Industrial Court committed a error while issuing a direction to create new permanent posts since the creation of public posts remains an exclusive prerogative of the State Government. The learned AGP further submitted that the respondent was not appointed through a regular procedure, issuance of direction for regularisation is in violation of statutory mandates. 5. The learned AGP further submitted that since the work is entirely seasonal and temporary, directing the state to create permanent post would burden the public exchequer. A prior ruling in Writ Petition No. 4252/2008 had already granted the respondent monetary differences for a limited period, which was overlooked. 65 WP No.260.2014 -3- 6. To support the contentions, the learned AGP has placed reliance on the following judgments :- (a) Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. Vs. Chander Hass and Anr. (2008 AIR SCW 406) (b) State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (2008 SCC OnLine Bom. 684) 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order under challenge submitting that the respondent dedicated continuous service to the petitioners' establishment and completed the statutory threshold of 240 days. Keeping an employee on a temporary or casual basis for years while extracting regular work amounts to a unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction while directing the petitioners to send a proposal for post creation. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for litigating sides and perusing the material available on record, the issue that arises for consideration is whether an Industrial Court possesses the power to direct the State Government to create new public posts for the regularisation of temporary or seasonal staff. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional 65 WP No.260.2014 -4- Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. Vs. Chander Hass and Anr. (supra) has held as under :- “15. The Court cannot direct the creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities and the Court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organization. This Court has time and again pointed out that the creation of a post is an executive or legislative function and it involves economic factors. Hence the Courts cannot take upon themselves the power of creation of a post. Therefore, the directions given by the High Court and First Appellate Court to create the posts of tractor driver and regularize the services of the respondents against the said posts cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside.” 10. In the present case, the record indicates and establishes that the Petitioner - Seed Multiplication Centre runs on non-irrigated agricultural land, which makes its operational requirements inherently dependent on seasonal cycles. Daily wage workers are engaged during agricultural periods and relieved when the season concludes. The Industrial Court has committed an error while in ignoring the fact continuous year-round work is not available in an un-irrigated farming setup. 11. While directing the State Authorities to forward proposals to accommodate the respondent by creating post, the 65 WP No.260.2014 -5- Industrial Court acted beyond the statutory jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgment as well as the order rendered in the review application are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. 12. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 13. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2010 rendered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 227/2000, along with the review order dated 07.02.2013, are quashed and set aside. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi