Bombay HC: Firemen and Drivers Win Permanent Status Against CIDCO

Here's a rundown of a recent court case where the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) faced off against some of its employees over job permanency. Let's break it down!

The Case Begins: CIDCO Takes Action

On December 5, 2025, the Bombay High Court, with Judge Amit Borkar in charge, made an important decision. CIDCO filed a legal complaint against Deepak D. Patil and other firemen and drivers, challenging a decision by the Industrial Court.

What Sparked the Dispute?

The issue started when these workers, employed at fire stations in Panvel, Dronagiri, and Kalamboli, claimed they were unfairly treated as temporary employees despite working for years. They were part of the CIDCO Employees Union and argued they deserved permanent status and benefits.

Employees’ Claims: Unfair Treatment

Deepak D. Patil and his coworkers said they had been working since 2006 (drivers) and 2009 (firemen) but were made to work extra hours without proper pay. They argued they were entitled to permanency under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act.

"We’ve worked continuously for years and deserve permanent status," said the complainants.

CIDCO’s Defense: Temporary by Nature

CIDCO argued that Deepak D. Patil and the other workers were hired on fixed-term contracts for specific projects, as advertised in 2008. They claimed the jobs were temporary and project-based, with no promise of permanency.

The Industrial Court’s Verdict: Grant Permanency

The Industrial Court found CIDCO guilty of unfair treatment and ordered that Deepak D. Patil and his colleagues be granted permanent status. CIDCO appealed, but the High Court upheld the Industrial Court's decision, emphasizing the continuous nature of the workers' duties.

Key Points from the Judgment

• Continuous Service: The court noted that Deepak D. Patil and his colleagues' duties were ongoing and essential, which contradicted the claim of temporary employment.
• Model Standing Orders: CIDCO, employing over 1000 workers, was bound by these rules. The court found CIDCO failed to comply.
• One-Day Breaks: These breaks were seen as a tactic to prevent workers from claiming continuous service.

CIDCO’s Role and Future Concerns

CIDCO argued that its role as a development authority meant it couldn't offer permanent positions since it eventually transfers developed areas to local authorities. However, the court ruled this didn't exempt CIDCO from following employment laws.

Summary of the Verdict

The High Court's decision emphasized fairness and legal obligations, directing CIDCO to implement the Industrial Court’s orders within 12 weeks. This case highlights the importance of recognizing the true nature of employment beyond contractual terms.