Case at a Glance
Seven workmen who worked as light boys, studio boys and in similar roles at the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune, were shifted onto the rolls of a series of contractors from 2007 and terminated in July 2018 while their industrial reference was pending. The Industrial Tribunal, Pune, granted them permanency from January 2023. The Bombay High Court dismissed FTII’s challenge, holding that FTII was the real employer and that the case fell within the Umadevi exception, and directed FTII to reinstate the seven as regular employees by 31 October 2026. The workers’ own petition for permanency from 2003 was also dismissed.
FTII, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, engaged the seven workmen in roles such as light boy and studio boy. FTII said they were engaged only ‘as and when required’ from 2005–06 on daily wages, without appointment letters, depending on student projects. The workmen said they had worked continuously since 2003 and that from 2007 FTII began routing their wages through contractors — Ace India Pvt. Ltd., then Global Enterprises, and finally Sigma Human Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd. — without notice of change under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
While Reference (IT) No. 45 of 2015 was pending, the workmen were terminated with effect from 2 July 2018. By an Award dated 2 April 2024, the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, held FTII’s failure to regularise them and its use of contractors to be illegal and directed permanency from January 2023. FTII had meanwhile created 15 Studio Assistant posts and issued Advertisement No. 1/2023, with recruitment put on hold. FTII challenged the Award; the workmen sought permanency from January 2003.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was FTII the real employer of workmen paid through contractors, and could the Industrial Tribunal direct their permanency despite Umadevi?
Changing Contractors, Same Workers, Same Employer
Justice Sandeep V. Marne applied the tests in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India, (2014) 08 SC CK 0072, (2014) 9 SCC 407, and found FTII to be the real employer: it made the initial engagement, paid wages in the early years, and the same men kept working as contractors changed. “There is continuity of services despite change of contractors, which satisfies the fifth condition,” the Court said, noting that “the contractor engaged services of the 7 workmen instead of bringing in its own staff.” On the 2018 termination, effected during the pendency of the reference without notice or retrenchment compensation and in breach of Section 33 of the ID Act, the Court observed: “The termination was effected in order to avoid the liability to regularise their services.”
On State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Court applied the paragraph 53 exception for irregular engagements of over ten years, drawing support from Jaggo v. Union of India, (2024) 12 SC CK 0073, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India, (2024) 08 SC CK 0039, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2138, and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. FTII’s own creation of 15 Studio Assistant posts answered the objection that the Tribunal was creating posts. The limitation plea failed because “The claim for regularisation needs to be raised only after rendering some length of service.” But the workmen’s plea for permanency from 2003 on a 90-day rule failed too: following Municipal Council, Tirora v. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade, 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867, “mere completion of 90 days of service in the Central Autonomous bodies is not a ground” for permanency.
What the Court Actually Held
- FTII, not the contractors, was the real employer of the seven workmen; there was continuity of service despite changes of contractor.
- The case fell within the Umadevi paragraph 53 exception, and with 15 Studio Assistant posts already created there was “no warrant for interference with the Award of the Industrial Tribunal”.
- FTII must reinstate the seven workmen as regular employees on or before 31 October 2026, with notional benefits of permanency from January 2023 to 1 April 2024 and actual arrears of pay, allowances and other benefits from 2 April 2024.
- No benefits are payable for the period before January 2023 or for the period they were out of service after the 2 July 2018 termination; the workmen’s petition for permanency from 2003 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows courts looking past contractor paperwork when the same workers continue doing the same work for the same institution.
- It applies the recent Supreme Court line — Jaggo, Vinod Kumar, Shripal — to an autonomous central body, while keeping within the Umadevi exception.
- It warns employers that terminating workers during a pending reference to avoid regularisation will count against them.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Workers
- Keep proof of continuity — the same work, the same premises, across changing contractors — as that decided the real-employer question.
- A claim for regularisation is not stale merely because it is raised after many years of service.
- Completing 90 days of work in a central autonomous body does not by itself give a right to permanency.
For Counsel
- Use the Balwant Rai Saluja tests to establish the principal employer, and seek production of records the employer withholds.
- Point to sanctioned or newly created posts to answer the ‘tribunal cannot create posts’ objection.
- Plead Section 33 of the ID Act where termination occurs during pendency of a reference.
Key Takeaways
- FTII was held to be the real employer of the seven workmen despite their being paid through contractors from 2007.
- The Industrial Tribunal’s grant of permanency from January 2023 was upheld under the Umadevi exception.
- FTII must reinstate the seven as regular employees by 31 October 2026; actual arrears run from 2 April 2024.
- No benefits for the pre-January 2023 period; the 90-day permanency claim from 2003 was rejected.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the court treat FTII as the employer when wages came from contractors?
Because FTII made the initial engagement and paid wages in the early years, and the same seven men continued working as contractors changed — the contractor used them instead of bringing its own staff.
Do the workers get back wages from 2018?
No. The court said they are not entitled to any benefits for the period they were out of service after the 2 July 2018 termination, or for any period before January 2023. They get notional benefits from January 2023 to 1 April 2024 and actual arrears from 2 April 2024.
Why was the workers’ claim for permanency from 2003 rejected?
The court held that the Central Standing Orders do not mandate permanency after 90 days, and that completing 90 days in a central autonomous body is not a ground for permanency.
Conclusion
The judgment balances both sides: it refuses to let a public institution hide long-serving workers behind a chain of contractors, but it also declines to push their permanency back to 2003 on a 90-day rule.
Practical takeaway: In contract-labour regularisation disputes, the strongest evidence is continuity — the same workers doing the same work for the same principal employer across changing contractors — coupled with the existence of sanctioned posts.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com