Sonali Mane 7-WP-9276-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9276 OF 2026 Mumbai Port Authority … Petitioner Versus Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees And Ors. … Respondents Mr. Anand Pai a/w Mr. Sahil Sayed, Mr. Sudheendra B. Rao for Petitioner. Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) The Petitioner has challenged Interim Order dated 15 May 2026 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -I directing it to permit the Respondent-Workman to resume his duties on the same terms and conditions on which he was last engaged. The exact directions issued in paragraph 29 of the Order are as under: (i) The First Party Management is directed to permit the workman Shri Dhruvraj Singh to resume duties within fifteen days from the date of this order on the same terms and conditions on which he was last engaged, subject to final outcome of the main reference. (ii) The Management shall not take any punitive or vindictive action against the workman solely on account of pendency of the present industrial dispute without following due process of law. ___Page No. 1 of 2 ___ 18 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.09.22 11:44:21 +0530 Sonali Mane 7-WP-9276-2026.docx (iii) The Management shall further ensure that no artificial breaks are introduced solely for the purpose of frustrating adjudication before this Tribunal or defeating statutory claims, subject however to the rights and contentions of both parties in the main reference. (iv) It is clarified that this order shall not confer any right of permanency, regularization or automatic continuity upon the workman and all issues on merits are expressly kept open for final adjudication. 2) I have heard Mr. Pai, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3) It prima facie appears that the Respondent-Workman is engaged on companionate basis after death of his father. His initial engagement was on 26 February 2007. He has apparently utilized for the last 19 long years. However, he is discontinued on 16 January 2026 in the light of pendency of reference demanding regularization. 4) Considering the above position, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the Interim Order of the Tribunal dated 15 May 2026. The Order merely contemplates resumption of services by Respondent- Workman on the same terms and conditions on which he was last engaged. Therefore, if he was engaged on a temporary/ad-hoc/casual basis, his continuation would be on the same terms and conditions. 5) I am therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 2 of 2 ___ 18 September 2026