901.WP.754.2023.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2003 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Dilip Baban Sonawane and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Mr. Santosh Parad i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocates for Petitioners.  Mr. Kishorekumar Shetty, Advocate for Respondents. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2025. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Patil learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Shetty learned Advocate for Respondents. 2. The present Petition challenges the order dated 03.09.2002 passed by learned Member of Industrial Court in Revision Application No. 17 of 2002, thereby confirming the order dated 28.12.2001 passed by 11th Labour Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 516 of 2001. 3. Briefly stated, in the year 1999, Respondents were appointed as Firemen in Bombay Fire Brigade. Appointment letters of some Respondents were issued on 02.08.1999, whereas appointment letters for remaining Respondents were issued subsequently on 16.10.1999. It was temporary appointment for the period of two years. 4. It Petitioners’ case that since Respondents participated in agitations from 02.06.2000 and did not perform their duties, show 1 of 6 901.WP.754.2023.doc cause notices dated 28.06.2000 and 04.07.2000 were issued and vide order dated 06.07.2000, their services were terminated. 5. Being aggrieved by the said termination, Respondents filed a Complaint (ULP) No. 516 of 2001 in Labour Court. By order dated 25.10.2000, the Labour Court allowed the Interim Application of Respondents and directed BMC to employ Respondents on temporary basis and pay them wages for work done by them till final disposal of the said Complaint. The said order was confirmed by Industrial Court on 24.11.2000 and by this Court on 29.01.2001. Thereafter, on 18.03.2001, Respondents resumed services. BMC paid salary with effect from 19.03.2001. 6. Thereafter, by final order dated 28.12.2001, the Presiding Officer of 11th Labour Court, Mumbai allowed the Complaint (ULP) No. 516 of 2001. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- “a. The Complaint at Exh. U-1 stands allowed, of course, with no order as to cost. b. It is hereby declared that Respondents have committed an unfair labour practices as per Item I (b) of Sch. IV of the Act, 1971. c. The Respondents are hereby directed to deprive these Complainants by not paying their back wages for the period of 26.6.2000 to 6.7.2000 for the work they did not do it. d. It is to be complied by complete continuing these complainants in their employment further alongwith the benefits of continuity of thee service subject to the aforesaid order in respect of payment of back wages within a month from today.” 2 of 6 901.WP.754.2023.doc 7. The said Order was confirmed by Member of Industrial Court vide order dated 03.09.2002 passed in Revision Application No. 17 of 2002. 8. By filing Affidavit in reply dated 02.10.2024 it is contended by Respondents that they sustained monetary loss due to alleged incorrect recording of date of appointment. According to Respondents they joined the services of BMC in the year 1999. However, their date of appointment was wrongly recorded in service book as 19.03.2001. According to Respondents, this resulted in depriving Respondents from yearly increment for the year 2001 to 2002. Furthermore, according to Respondents as per order dated 28.12.2001, wages of only 9 days (from 26.06.2000 to 06.07.2000) should have been deducted from the salary. However, BMC did not pay salary for period from 06.07.2000 to 19.03.2001. This caused monetary loss to Respondents. 9. Taking into consideration the contentions raised in the Affidavit-in-Reply, the following order was passed on 25.07.2025:- “1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Shetty, learned Advocate for Respondents. 2. After going through the impugned order and Affidavit-in- Reply filed by Respondents two specific claims of Respondents appended at page Nos.176 and 177 of the Petition which are consequential and as a repercussion of the dispute between the parties are required to be answered by the Corporation. 3. Mr. Patil in his usual fairness would inform the Court that he will take appropriate instructions on the same apart from the issue of arguing the substantive challenge to the order of the Industrial Court in Revision proceedings which has dismissed the Revision Application of the Corporation. 4. The Corporation is directed to accordingly give appropriate instructions to Mr. Patil with respect to the aforesaid consequential claims agitated by Respondents in their 3 of 6 901.WP.754.2023.doc Affidavit in reply as delineated hereinabove and accordingly apprise the Court on the next adjourned date when the Petition is argued. 5. Stand over to 08th August, 2025. To be placed on the ‘Final Hearing Board’.” 10. Thereafter, Petitioners filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 11.09.2025 stating that statements annexed to the Affidavit-in- Reply are forwarded to the accounts department for verification and after taking into consideration opinion of legal department, orders impugned in the Petition and the orders of this Court and the Municipal Service Rules, the proposal regarding payment of arrears of Respondents shall be prepared and processed. 11. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit that Orders dated 28.12.2001 and 03.09.2002 have been passed without taking into consideration the fact that Respondents admittedly participated in the agitations, knowing that they were on probation on temporary basis and were not cautious about their duties and gravity of misconduct and failing to discharge their duties. According to Mr. Patil, Petitioners were entitled to terminate the services of Probationers at any time, even without mentioning the reasons for the same. He would submit that participation in agitation was serious misconduct on the part of Respondents because Fire Brigade services cater needs of citizens by way of protecting their property and lives and therefore Respondents ought not to have participated in agitations. Hence, he would urge the Court to allow the present Petition. 4 of 6 901.WP.754.2023.doc 12. Mr. Shetty, learned Advocate for Respondents, in support of the impugned orders would submit that the Petition be dismissed. He would submit that no doubt Respondents participated in the agitations from 26.06.2000 till 06.07.2000. He would submit that Respondents were aware of the fact that their appointment was on temporary basis on probation. He would submit that services through Fire Brigade Department are essential services and if those are paralyzed at the instance or behest of firemen then it may result into damage of property and lives. Therefore, he would submit that Respondents ought not to have participated in the agitations. However, it is also pertinent to note that Respondents had brought on record before the Lower Court that except 14 firemen, no other temporary firemen, attached to other fire stations, were punished with such extreme punishment of dismissal/termination of services. He would submit that punishment so imposed is disproportionate and discriminatory. Hence, taking into consideration, these aspects, the Lower Courts passed impugned Orders. He would submit that there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Lower Courts. Hence, he would urge the Court to dismiss the present Petition. 13. I have heard, Mr. Patil learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Shetty learned Advocate for Respondents and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by both the Advocates at the bar has received due consideration of the Court. 5 of 6 901.WP.754.2023.doc 14. In so far as contentions of Respondents as raised in their Affidavit-in-Reply dated 02.10.2024 are concerned, it is clarified that was just and necessary to provide all benefits to Respondents on the basis of their initial date of appointment in the year 1999. Municipal Corporation can not consider the date of appointment of Respondents as 19.03.2001. It is further categorically clarified by the Labour Court that Municipal Corporation is specifically not entitled to pay back wages for the period from 26.06.2000 to 06.07.2000 to Respondents – Complainants. Therefore, save and except the said deduction, Municipal Corporation is thereby directed to calculate the arrears payable to the each Respondent after taking into consideration the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondents and to clear the said arrears of Respondents within period of 4 (four) weeks from uploading of this order. 15. In view of the above observations and findings, the Writ Petition is dismissed in the above terms. 16. Stand over to 23rd December, 2025. To be placed under the caption ‘For Compliance’. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.11.24 18:28:39 +0530