Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16431 OF 2025 Panvel City Municipal Corporation and Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Srang S. Aradhye with Ms. Gauri Velankar, for Petitioner. Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rahul Sinha (V.C), Mr. Soham Bhalerao, Mr. Arnav Ashtikar i/b DSK Legal for CISCO. Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode with Ms. Sheetal M. Ubale and Mr. Abhijeet Shine, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde, for Respondent No. 4. Ms. Jinal Meghani i/b A.J. Uniyal and Associates, for Respondent No. 5. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 31 July 2026 P.C.: 1) This Petition is @led by Panvel City Municipal Corporation, challenging the interim order dated 29 July 2025 passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Thane, on application at Exhibit U-2 @led in Complaint (ULP) No. 89 of 2025. By the impugned order, the Industrial Page No. 1 of 5 31 July 2026 Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025 Court has directed the Petitioner to temporarily absorb services of 16 members of Respondent No. 1-Union as contract workers and to continue their services during pendency of the Complaint. The impugned order also directs CIDCO to continue the services of the 16 named individuals and to pay them wages for the period of 15 Days. 2) I have heard Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Bansode, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1-Union, Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4-Board 3) It appears that, the 16 members of @rst Respondent-Union were functioning as workers of the contractor, M/s. Vishal Protection Force (Respondent No. 6), who was engaged by CIDCO. CIDCO was the Planning Authority in respect of Kharghar, Kalamboli and Kamothe Nodes. Upon formation of the Petitioner Municipal Corporation, an Agreement was executed between Panvel Municipal Corporation and CIDCO on 10 March 2023, inter alia, for handing over the civic amenities and CIDCO properties to the Municipal Corporation. One of the conditions of such transfer was that the amenities would be transferred alongwith the existing staff (permanent as well as contractual). Thus, Petitioner Municipal Corporation took upon itself the responsibility to adjust the permanent and contractual staff engaged for looking after the handed over public amenities in Kharghar, Kalamboli and Kamothe Nodes. Page No. 2 of 5 31 July 2026 Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025 4) It appears that total 29 Security employees were engaged to look after three crematoriums and one Samaj Mandir in the three Nodes through the Respondent No. 6 contractor. They comprised of 26 Security Guards and 3 Security Supervisors. Upon handing over of the said properties to the Municipal Corporation, CIDCO issued intimation to the contractor by letter dated 29 April 2025, that it would not have the responsibility of paying wages in respect of the said 29 security personnel. CIDCO pointed out to the contractor that under the contractual arrangement, the said contract workers were to be either transferred to the Petitioner Municipal Corporation or they were to be terminated. It appears that a separate intimation dated 2 June 2025 was issued by CIDCO to the Petitioner-Municipal Corporation calling it upon to adjust and continue the services of the said 29 security personnel. 5) It appears that the Petitioner-Municipal Corporation has a reservation about continuation of the security personnel engaged by CIDCO through the Respondent No. 6 on account of provisions of GR dated 8 November 2006, under which it is mandatory for Government and semi Government organizations, including planning authorities, to engage Security Guards only through the jurisdictional Security Board. The jurisdictional Security Board in the present case is the Respondent No. 4. 6) Thus, the unique conundrum is created in present case, where there is an agreement between the Petitioner and CIDCO for continuation of services of contractual workers upon handing over of civic amenities by CIDCO to the Petitioner. However, there is an Page No. 3 of 5 31 July 2026 Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025 impediment in the form of GR dated 8 November 2006, which prevents the Petitioner from engaging Security personnel directly through the contractors. The Industrial Court has taken note of GR dated 8 November 2006 and has held that registration of Security Guards with the Board is of vital importance to safeguard their interests. However, the Industrial Court has still directed the Petitioner to temporarily absorb the services of the 16 named workers and to continue them as contractual workers during pendency of the Complaint. So far as direction issued to CIDCO for payment of wages for period of 15 days is concerned, Mr. Shah submits that the said direction has been duly complied with. 7) Use of the word ‘absorb’ in operative direction No. (iii) in the impugned order creates confusion. What is actually envisaged by direction No. (iii) is continuation of services of the 16 Security personnel on contract basis during pendency of the Complaint. 8) As observed above, the Petitioner Municipal Corporation is unable to issue contract to Respondent No. 6 for the purpose of continuation of services of the 16 security personnel. At the same time, this limitation on the Petitioner Municipal Corporation has rendered the 16 security personnel jobless. Parties are ad idem that the 16 Security personnel were engaged by CIDCO through contractors in their capacity as project affected persons. In my view, an arrangement needs to be made during pendency of the Complaint for registration of the 16 security personnel with Respondent No. 4-Board, with a direction to the Board to deploy them with the Petitioner Municipal Corporation during pendency of the Complaint. This would serve twin objections of ensuring Page No. 4 of 5 31 July 2026 Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025 due compliance with provisions of GR dated 8 November 2006 as well as providing job to the 16 security personnel. 9) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order: i) Oder dated 29 July 2025 passed by the Industrial Court on application at Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No. 89 of 2025 is modi@ed to the extent that operative direction No. (iii) is replaced with the direction that the Respondent No. 4-Board shall forthwith register the 16 named security personnel. Towards this end, the concerned 16 security personnel shall @le an applications with the Board, alongwith requisite documents, within a period of one week. ii) Upon grant of registration to 16 security personnel, the Respondent No.4 Board shall depute them with the Petitioner Municipal Corporation in an expeditious manner and within outer limit of four weeks. iii) This arrangement would be restricted only to 16 named security personnel in the order dated 29 July 2025 and the same shall continue during pendency of the Complaint. 10) The Complaint shall be decided by the Industrial Court on its own merits without being inHuenced by any observations made in the order. 11) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 5 of 5 31 July 2026