Bombay High Court
Ramkisan Mariba Adangale vs Shirdi Nagar Panchayat Shirdi Through ... on 20 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7639
130-WP-5940-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
130 WRIT PETITION NO. 5940 OF 2023
Ramkisan Mariba Adangale
VERSUS
Shirdi Nagar Panchayat Shirdi Through Its Chief Officer
.....
Mr. Barde Parag Vijay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for Respondent
.....
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 20.02.2026
FINAL ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2022 passed
by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint
(ULP) No. 56/2017, whereby the complaint filed by the Petitioner
came to be dismissed.
3. The learned Counsel Mr. Parag Barde for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent - Municipal
Council as a Sweeper on 15.07.1989 and was made permanent on
01.07.1992. He submits that the Assured Career Progressive Scheme
(for short 'the said Scheme') was introduced by the State Government
was made applicable to the Respondent - Municipal Council. Under
the said Scheme, benefits are granted to those employees who have
continuously rendered twelve years of service. Accordingly, the
Petitioner became eligible for the benefits of the said Scheme. The
Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010 on superannuation. It is
1
130-WP-5940-2023.odt
submitted that thereafter the Respondent - Municipal Council
extended the benefits of the said Scheme to other employees; however
the claim of the Petitioner was denied. Therefore, the Petitioner
approached the learned Industrial Court by filing Complaint (ULP)
No.56/2017 alleging unfair labour practices under Item Nos,5, 9 and
10 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions &
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the said
Act'). He further submits that though the Petitioner was eligible to
receive the benefits, the Respondent denied the same. According to
him, denial of such benefits is a recurring cause of action and
constitutes a continuing unfair labour practice. However, the learned
Industrial Court failed to properly consider the said aspect and
dismissed the Complaint.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. V. D. Hon, assisted by the learned
Counsel Mr. A. V. Hon submitted that the Complaint filed by the
Petitioner was barred by limitation. He invited my attention to the
findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court and supported the
order passed by the Industrial Court by pointing out that the
Complaint filed by the Petitioner was hopelessly time-barred. He
therefore submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to receive the
benefits on the ground of limitation.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, there
is no dispute that the Petitioner was entitled to receive the benefits
upon completion of twelve years of permanent service on 01.07.2004.
It is also undisputed that the Respondent - Municipal Council
extended the benefits of the time scale / Assured Progressive Scheme
2
130-WP-5940-2023.odt
to other similarly situated employees after 01.07.2004 and even after
the Petitioner's retirement on 30.06.2010. Therefore, from
01.07.2004, the Petitioner became eligible to receive the said benefits.
The learned Industrial Court by recording a finding that under Section
28(1) of the said Act, a Complaint relating to unfair labour practices is
required to be filed within 90 days of the occurrence, held that the
Complaint was not filed within the prescribed period and therefore
dismissed the Complaint holding it to be hopelessly time-barred.
6. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner became
entitled to the benefit of time scale promotion /Assured Career
Progressive Scheme on 01.07.2004. The cause of action, therefore,
commenced from that date and continued until the Respondent
refused to extend such benefits. The denial of benefits, in such
circumstances, constitutes a continuing wrong. The learned Industrial
Court ought not have dismissed the Complaint solely on the ground of
limitation. At the most, the learned Industrial Court ought to have
granted benefits restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of
the Complaint. On this issue, I am guided by the law laid down by this
Court in Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking
(BEST) Vs. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana and Others reported in
2023 (6) Bom. C. R. 528, wherein, relying upon the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment, it is held that it is well settled that
as long as the default in performance of obligation continues, the
wrong is deemed to have continued and therefore, it is to be taken as a
continuing wrong.
7. In view of the above, as the Petitioner is entitled to receive the
benefits for the period of three years preceding the filing of the
3
130-WP-5940-2023.odt
Complaint, I am inclined to partly allow the Writ Petition by modifying
the order passed by the learned Industrial Court. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following order :
ORDER
[I] The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
[II] The order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.56/2017 is set aside. It is held that since the Complaint was filed on 27.06.2017, the Petitioner shall be entitled to receive the benefits for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the Complaint.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/February-2026 4