Authority: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Bombay

Order Date: 29 September 2026 (Judgment Pronounced); Reserved on 17 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Film & Television Institute of India (FTII) (employer) and workmen Javed Rasul Banedar, Rahul Rajendra Pawar, Prakash Nivrutti Kamble, Ramchandra Nathu Ambekar, Amit Kalidas Jagtap, Maheboob H. Bagwan, Mahesh Atmaram Pawar; Respondents – Sigma Human Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd. (contractor) and the seven workmen respectively in the cross‑petitions.
  • Nature of Proceedings: Two cross‑writ petitions (WP‑1644/2025 filed by FTII; WP‑14169/2025 filed by the seven workmen) challenging an Award dated 2 April 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT) No. 45/2015.
  • Background: The workmen were engaged by FTII on a “as and when required” basis from 2005‑06, initially on daily‑wage contracts directly with FTII. From January 2007 they were paid through contractors (Aces India Pvt. Ltd., then Global Enterprises, and finally Sigma Human Resources). They were terminated on 2 July 2018 during pendency of the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal held FTII’s failure to regularise them illegal and directed grant of permanency from January 2023, also ordering reinstatement.
  • FTII’s Contentions: FTII argued the workmen were never its employees, that the engagements were need‑based, that the claim was barred by limitation, that no sanctioned permanent posts existed, and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing creation of posts.
  • Workmen’s Contentions (through counsel Mr. Malegaonkar): The workmen claimed continuous service since 2003, illegal shift to contractors without notice under Sec 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and entitlement to regularisation/permanency based on over 15 years of service and the existence of 15 Studio Assistant posts advertised in 2023.
  • Legal Framework Discussed: The judgment extensively examined the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi (distinguishing illegal vs. irregular appointments), the six‑test matrix from Balwant Rai Saluja, provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Clause 4C), Section 33 of the ID Act, and subsequent Apex Court rulings (Jaggo, Vinod Kumar, Rajkaran Singh, Shripal, etc.) on regularisation of long‑serving temporary workers.
  • Key Findings on Employer‑Employee Relationship: The Court applied the six tests – FTII appointed the workers, paid wages directly (2003‑2006), retained dismissal authority, maintained control/supervision, and ensured continuity despite contractor changes – concluding the workers were indeed FTII employees.
  • Statutory Observations: The Court rejected FTII’s reliance on limitation, held the 2015 Reference was timely, noted that termination on 2 July 2018 violated Sec 33 of the ID Act (termination during pendency) and statutory notice/retrenchment requirements.
  • Distinction Between Regularisation and Permanency: Citing Umadevi, the Court clarified that regularisation cures procedural irregularities, whereas permanency confers a substantive right of continued service; the Tribunal’s direction effectively amounted to regularisation with permanency from Jan 2023.
  • Application of the Umadevi Exception: The workers had served more than ten years in irregular (not illegal) appointments and qualified for one‑time regularisation as per para 53 of Umadevi and reinforced by later Apex Court judgments.

Final Outcome

  • Both writ petitions (WP‑1644/2025 and WP‑14169/2025) are dismissed.
  • FTII is ordered to reinstate the seven workmen as regular employees on or before 31 October 2026.
  • FTII shall grant notional permanency benefits 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.
  • No costs are awarded to either side.

Topics: Court Judgment, Employment Regularisation, Labour Law