Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 29 September 2026 (Judgment pronounced; judgment reserved on 17 September 2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Film & Television Institute of India (FTII) in Writ Petition No. 1644 of 2025; seven workmen – Javed Rasul Banedar, Rahul Rajendra Pawar, Prakash Nivrutti Kamble, Ramchandra Nathu Ambekar, Amit Kalidas Jagtap, Maheboob H. Bagwan, Mahesh Atmaram Pawar – in Writ Petition No. 14169 of 2025.
  • Respondents: Sigma Human Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd. (contractor) and the opposite parties in each petition.
  • Background: The Industrial Tribunal, Pune, in Reference (IT) No. 45/2015, awarded on 2 April 2024 that FTII’s failure to regularise the seven workers was illegal and directed grant of permanency from January 2023. FTII appealed (WP 1644/2025) alleging the award was erroneous; the workers appealed (WP 14169/2025) seeking permanency from January 2003.
  • FTII’s Contentions: (i) Workers were engaged on a purely “as‑and‑when‑required” basis, paid daily wages, and never held permanent posts; (ii) The claim is barred by limitation; (iii) No sanctioned posts existed; (iv) Creation of posts is a power of the Government, not FTII; (v) The 15 Studio‑Assistant posts created in 2023 cannot justify regularisation; (vi) Central Standing Orders do not provide permanency after three months of service.
  • Workmen’s Contentions: (i) Continuous service since 2003 (directly paid by FTII until 2006, thereafter through contractors from 2007); (ii) Shift to contractors in 2007 violated Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (iii) No notice of change; (iv) Termination in July 2018 was illegal and without retrenchment compensation; (v) They are entitled to regularisation under the exception in Umadevi for irregular appointments of more than ten years; (vi) They seek permanency from January 2003.
  • Legal Framework Discussed:
  • Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (distinguishing illegal vs. irregular appointments and the ten‑year exception);
  • Six‑test matrix from Balwant Rai Saluja (appointment, payment, authority to dismiss, disciplinary power, continuity, control);
  • Model Standing Orders Clause 4C and its limitation;
  • Relevant Supreme Court precedents (Nedungadi Bank, U.P. State Road Transport, Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe, Jaggo, Vinod Kumar, Rajkaran Singh, Shripal, etc.).
  • Factual Findings:
  • FTII hired the seven workers directly from 2003‑2006 (daily‑wage basis) – admitted by FTII in its written statement and corroborated by a letter dated 28 April 2015.
  • From 1 January 2007 onward, the workers were routed through four contractors (Aces India Pvt. Ltd., Global Enterprises, and finally Sigma Human Resources) but continued to work at FTII under the same supervision.
  • The workers performed studio‑assistant duties for student projects, indicating FTII’s control and authority over them.
  • FTII created 15 Studio‑Assistant posts in 2023 and advertised them (Advertisement No. 1/2023).
  • Termination of the workers on 2 July 2018 occurred during pendency of the reference and violated Section 33 of the ID Act (termination during adjudication) and procedural requirements of Section 9‑A.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The Umadevi principle that long‑service alone does not create a right to regularisation applies, but the ten‑year exception (para 53) permits regularisation of irregularly appointed workers who have served more than ten years in duly sanctioned posts.
  • The existence of 15 sanctioned Studio‑Assistant posts in 2023 satisfies the “vacant sanctioned post” requirement for regularisation.
  • The six tests from Balwant Rai Saluja are satisfied: FTII appointed, paid (initially), could dismiss, exercised control, continuity of service despite contractor changes, and supervised the work.
  • The claim for permanency from January 2003 is untenable because the Central Standing Orders do not mandate permanency after 90 days; the Industrial Tribunal’s direction for permanency is effectively a direction for regularisation.
  • The limitation argument is rejected; the cause of action arose only after a decade of service, making the 2015 reference timely.
  • The termination in 2018 was illegal; however, the award does not provide benefits for the period before January 2023.

Final Outcome

  • Both writ petitions (WP 1644/2025 and WP 14169/2025) are dismissed.
  • FTII shall reinstate the seven workmen as regular employees on or before 31 October 2026.
  • FTII shall grant notional benefits of permanency to the workmen for the period January 2023 to 1 April 2024.
  • From 2 April 2024 onward, the workmen shall receive actual arrears of pay, allowances and other benefits as per the Industrial Tribunal’s award.
  • No benefits are payable for the period prior to January 2023.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Employment Law, Industrial Relations, Regularisation of Temporary Workers