Judgment Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by respondent No.1 (Regional Director of Municipal Administration) dated 30.07.1990 and also consequential order passed by respondent no.2 (Municipal Council, Tumsar) dated 16.08.1990 by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India on 27.08.1990. This Court on 29.08.1990 issued notice and granted interim stay of the impugned orders. While admitting the matter, this Court has continued stay on 17.07.1991. The petitioners have been in service, pursuance to these orders passed by this Court till this date. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners makes statement that they have been receiving all the benefits, in accordance with law, till this date. The petition is listed for final hearing. Practically, after more than 22 years. A submission is made now by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 that the appointments so made by the then President of respondent no.2 was illegal and beyond power, as there was no sanctioned posts available for such appointments. The submission is made that illegal appointments cannot be continued in such fashion, merely because this petition is pending since 1990. The order/action, which is illegal and without jurisdiction needs to be dealt with appropriately. The reliance is made on the judgment of this Court Sh. Yuvraj s/o Parasram Bante and another Vs. Municipal Council, Tumsar and another dated 14.11.2011 whereby a Division Bench of this Court interfered and set aside the order/appointments made by the same President of respondent no.2. The reliance was placed on various judgments as referred and discussed in paragraphs 7 and 12 of the judgments, are as under: Para 7: “The law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this background needs to be appreciated. In Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has made a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular appointments. Regularisation as one time measure is allowed only where the appointments are found to be irregular and not illegal. Recently in (2011) 2 SCC 429 State of Rajasthan .vs. Daya Lal, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further considered said aspect and held that when appointments are made against non-available posts or unsanctioned vacancies, the appointments are illegal and not irregular. Regularisation of such illegal recruits is held not permissible. Recently in (2011) 2 SCC 429 State of Rajasthan .vs. Daya Lal, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further considered said aspect and held that when appointments are made against non-available posts or unsanctioned vacancies, the appointments are illegal and not irregular. Regularisation of such illegal recruits is held not permissible. Division Bench of this Court has in some what similar circumstances in 1972 Mh.L.J.874 Uttam and others .vs. Municipal Council, Darwha and others has quashed and set aside the appointment of Teachers made without any advertisement. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2009) 8 SCC 556 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana and it has been held that judgment and ratio therein does not modify the provisions of any welfare labour legislation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that whenever vacancies are available and appointments are made against those vacancies, the question of regularisation can be considered by the Labour Court or Industrial Court functioning under such welfare legislation. Here the petitioners before us are not covered by the definition of term “Workman” as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or then by definition of term “Employee” as defined in Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It is, therefore, obvious that welfare legislations as envisaged by Hon'ble Apex Court in MSRTC (supra) are not relevant here.” Para 12: “The above mentioned direction dated 05.07.2001 issued by RDMA to Chief Officer of the Municipal Council of respondent no.1 also cannot be viewed as derogatory of policy decision dated 8.3.1999. Once it is found that the petitioners were not validly appointed after following mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is clear that even forwarding of their names by the Municipal Council to Collector would not have clothed them with any right in the matter of grant of employment. In this situation, if there are some other teachers appointed initially like these petitioners, but then succeeded in getting their services regularised, the said instances cannot be of any help to petitioners. In this situation, if there are some other teachers appointed initially like these petitioners, but then succeeded in getting their services regularised, the said instances cannot be of any help to petitioners. If respondent no.1 Municipal Council has permitted any such regularisation which is contrary to law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) and in any case contrary to Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Uttam (supra), it is settled law that the candidates like the petitioners cannot claim equality by pointing out the injustice done or illegality done in other matters.” 3. We have to consider the present case in the light of the then existing provisions of The Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “Act”) specially, Sections 76 and 310 of the Act, are as under: Section 76 : Appointment of other officers and servants – (1) A council may, with the sanction of the Director, create such posts of officers and servants other than those specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) [of Section 75] as it shall deem necessary for efficient execution of its duties under this Act. (2) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the qualifications], pay, allowances and other conditions of service and the method of recruitment of any such officers and servants, - (a) if the minimum salary (exclusive of allowances) of the post [does not exceed Rs. 200] per month shall be determined by, byelaws made by the Council in this behalf; and (b) if the minimum salary (exclusive of allowances) of the post is [exceeds Rs.200] shall be determined by general or special order made by the Director in this behalf. [(3) Subject to any general or special orders, which may, from time to time, be made by the State Government in this behalf, appointments to the posts created under subsection (1), but excluding the posts of municipal officers and servants, the minimum salary (exclusive of allowances) of which does not exceed Rs. [(3) Subject to any general or special orders, which may, from time to time, be made by the State Government in this behalf, appointments to the posts created under subsection (1), but excluding the posts of municipal officers and servants, the minimum salary (exclusive of allowances) of which does not exceed Rs. 200, shall be made by the Chief Officer or any person duly authorised by the Council for the purpose, from the list of candidates selected by such agency or organisation, by whatever name called, as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify.] [(4) No council shall employ any person, who has not completed fifteenth year, to serve as a member of its sanitary staff].” “Section 310: Power of Director to prevent extravagance in the employment of establishment:- If in the opinion of the Director the number of persons who are employed by a Council as officers or servants, or whom a Council proposes to employ or the remuneration assigned by the Council to those persons or to any particular person is excessive the Council shall, on the requirement of the Director, reduce the number of the said persons or the remuneration of the said person or persons: Provided that, the Council may appeal against any such requirement to the State Government, whose decision shall be conclusive.” 4] Reference was made to Section 318 of the Act also, which is as under:- “Section 318: Revisional powers of State Government:- The State Government may, at any time, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of, any Council or of any officer subordinate to such Council or the State Government, acting in exercise of any power conferred on it or him by or under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by, such Council or officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that, no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard; Provided further that, no such order shall be passed in any case in which an appeal is provided and has been preferred or has been decided; Provided also that, no such record shall be called by the State Government after one year from the date of the passing of the order by the Council or the officer concerned.” 5 It is necessary to note main prayer (1) of the petitioners in the petition, which reads thus:- (1) be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 30th July, 1990 (Annexure-D) and consequential orders issued by the Respondent no.2 dated 16.8.1990 (Annexure E-1 to E-21);" 6. Admittedly, the petitioners nowhere claimed or made any prayer for regularisation of their services. They are in service of respondent no.2 even prior to the date of the impugned order as “daily wages” since more than 8 to 10 years. Their salary was admittedly less than Rs.200/- per month. Respondent no.2 in their meeting dated 26.12.1988 by a Resolution authorised Chairman of respondent no.2 to appoint employees and rests upon the same, the petitioners were working along with other 29 persons on daily wages appointed on monthly basis. On 18.05.1990 the Standing Committee of respondent no.2 approved the said appointments. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the powers of the Collector to appoint number of persons as per requirements and he is competent person to take decision under Chapter XXIII of the State of Maharashtra Municipalities Act. There is no dispute with regard to the powers of the Director and the Collector. There is no challenge even otherwise the authorities as well as the issue which is remained as it is in the present facts and circumstances, whether the impugned order/decision is taken by invoking Section 310 of the Act and within the framework of law, especially in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. The respondent/Director admittedly passed the impugned order under Section 307 of the Act. Therefore, the submission based upon other material including Section 318 of the Act, in our view, is of no assistance to the respondent. The order is clear and so also the provisions referred to, we are inclined to observe that the present case is based upon the conditions of Section 310 of the Act and the related issues. 9. Considering the scope of Section 310 of the Act, the Director is empowered to reduce the strength and/or to prevent extravagance in the employment of establishment and to pass appropriate orders which is basically reducing the number of employees and/or reducing the remuneration of the said person or persons. In the present case, the Director without giving any opportunity and/or hearing and/or calling explanation from the President, Municipal Council held that the appointments given from 30.04.1990 to 10.08.1990 is illegal on the recommendation of the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Tumsar. In the present case, the Director without giving any opportunity and/or hearing and/or calling explanation from the President, Municipal Council held that the appointments given from 30.04.1990 to 10.08.1990 is illegal on the recommendation of the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Tumsar. The issue is not about the powers of Director to pass such orders but the issue is about they adopted the method and procedure to pass the unilateral orders terminating the services of all the employees. 10. No reason whatsoever given/mentioned in the order to discard the resolution passed by the Municipal Council approving the decision of the proceedings. It is relevant to note that Section 76 empowers the President and/or Municipal Council to appoint the employees/staff. In the present case, admittedly, those employees getting rupees less than 200/- per month who were appointed by the President on monthly basis, those employees admittedly “daily workers” and working with the Municipal Council, Tumsar since 8 to 9 years. The rights of daily workers, who have completed 240 days, cannot be overlooked by any employer and especially Municipal Council, who are the statutory/public body under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. Therefore, the approval of appointment of the employees of those workers cannot be stated to be illegal and or bad in law. The decision given in the resolution was also to avoid further lost of huge amount spent over the salary of such daily wage employees since long. 11. We are not concerned with the regularization of the employees. The Regional Director only expressed that the appointment is “illegal”. There are no reasons whatsoever mentioned about the sanctioned and unsanctioned posts which could have been done appropriately by giving opportunity to Municipal Council to make proper application or representation which could have been considered in accordance with law by the State. The effect of this letter is that the respondent/Regional Director has terminated the services of all the employees without giving any opportunity to the Municipal Council and/or even to the employees to put their cases and to redress the grievances. 12. The effect of this letter is that the respondent/Regional Director has terminated the services of all the employees without giving any opportunity to the Municipal Council and/or even to the employees to put their cases and to redress the grievances. 12. Assume for a moment that the respondent/Director has power to interfere with the executive decision taken by the Municipal Council by invoking Section 310 of the Act, but in the present facts and circumstances especially when this Court has granted stay to the impugned order and till this date, the entitlement or the benefits including uninterrupted services of those employees are more of 25 years or more, remained intact. Therefore, the appointment given by the Municipal Council by following due procedure of law by passing resolution and thereby created right in favour of those employees and under the said Act. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent /Director. 13. It is made clear that the respondent No.2/Municipal Council may take steps to regularize the services of those employees if not be regularized in law. The uninterrupted services of the petitioners and their entitlement need to be considered in accordance with law. 14. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 13.07.1990 passed by respondent No.1 and consequential order passed by respondent No.2 dated 16.08.1990 are quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.