: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1600 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1859 OF 2008 Pune Mahanagarpalika Kamgar Union, Pune .. Applicants V/s. Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune .. Respondents Smt. Seema Sarnaik for the Applicants. Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. This Civil Application has been filed by the applicant-Union contending that the applicant-Union apprehends that the workmen who are concerned in the Complaint (ULP) No.136 of 2003 filed before the Industrial Court, Pune, and whose names have been annexed at Annexure “A-1” to the Writ Petition would be thrown out of the employment from 1st July, 2010. This apprehension is based on an advertisement being issued by the respondent- Corporation, calling for tenders from the contractors who wish to undertake the work in its Encroachment Department. : 2 : 2. According to the applicant-Union, the aforesaid workmen, whose names are listed in Annexure “A-1” to the Writ Petition, have been working for years together albeit with a break for a day. Their services have been continued despite new contractors being appointed regularly by the respondent-Corporation for the Encroachment Department after following the regular process of floating tenders. According to the applicant-Union, the respondent-Corporation may not continue the workmen in service after the new contractor is appointed in accordance with the latest tender floated by it and, therefore, the present Civil Application. 3. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Corporation, states that there is a complete ban on recruitments in the respondent-Corporation in view of the Resolutions passed by the State Government. He further submits that various Resolutions have been passed by the State Government directing the respondent- : 3 : Corporation and Municipalities not to regularize the workmen who have been employed through a back door method. These Circulars / Resolutions are based on the directions received from the State Government in view of the certain judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. One of the directions is that there is no scope for regularization unless the appointment is made on a regular basis. 4. The contention of the applicant-Union in the present case is not that the services of the workmen should be regularized immediately but that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, they should be permitted to work on the same basis as they have been working so far. 5. In view of the statement made by Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the respondent- Corporation, that the respondent-Corporation will not recruit anybody for the work that the workmen are performing today as there is a ban on recruitment, no orders protecting the services of : 4 : the workmen can be passed. However, it is made clear that if any workmen are to be employed by the respondent-Corporation on the same basis as the workmen whose names figure in the Annexure “A-1” to the Writ Petition, the latter would get precedence over the new incumbent. 6. The Civil Application is disposed of.