
Summary: The Bombay High Court decided in favor of several forest watchmen from Nashik, giving them permanent status and benefits after many years of working on temporary contracts.
The case involves a series of complaints by the Forest Development Corporation, Nashik, against several watchmen who were hired between 1977 and 1992. These workers claimed they were unfairly kept on temporary contracts even though they worked continuously for over 240 days each year.
The watchmen filed complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. They argued that the Corporation was unfair by not making them permanent, even though their work was ongoing and important.
"The watchmen contended that... they were entitled to the benefits of permanency and the benefits which are given to the permanent employees..."
The Forest Development Corporation argued that they didn't have to make the watchmen permanent because there were no approved positions. They claimed the jobs were under temporary plans and that making them permanent would cause financial loss.
On July 31, 2000, the Industrial Court sided with the watchmen, saying that the Corporation had indeed been unfair. The court ordered the Corporation to make the watchmen permanent and give them benefits starting from April 1, 1998.
The Corporation challenged the Industrial Court's decision, but the Bombay High Court, led by Judges G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, agreed with the previous ruling on December 24, 2025. The High Court pointed out the continuous nature of the watchmen's work and their rightful claim to permanent status.
"The learned Single Judge has categorically observed... a clear employer–employee relationship existed between the Forest Development Corporation and the watchmen..."
The High Court's decision ensures that the forest watchmen will get permanent jobs and the benefits that come with them, recognizing their long-term, essential work. This case shows the importance of fair employment practices and the role of the courts in making sure these standards are followed.
Disclaimer: The names used in this report are fictitious and have been added for privacy reasons.