Gujarat High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Solanki Ajitkumar Gulabsinh on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25950/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25950 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7656 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7936 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7563 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7308 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7297 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7312 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7313 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7510 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7322 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7481 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7612 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7385 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7355 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7390 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7919 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
SOLANKI AJITKUMAR GULABSINH & ANR.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25950/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS PJ DAVAWALA(240) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VILAS A PURANI(9038) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/09/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue raised in the these petitions is similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.25950 of 2022 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court in Payment of Wages Application No.237 of 2015 below Exhibit 13, whereby the application preferred by the present petitioners raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the learned Court to decide the case came to be rejected."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, alleging that he was working with respondent No.2 as a Security Guard at the Telephone Exchange, Mansa, and that respondent No.2, being the contractor, had failed to pay him Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/25950/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined wages for the last seven months, though he had been working for about one and a half years. Upon such complaint being filed before the learned authority, the petitioner preferred an application below Exhibit 9 raising a preliminary objection, inter alia contending that respondent No.1 had no right to file the application against the present petitioner, as the learned authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was specifically contended that the petitioner had been wrongly impleaded as a party, since respondent No.1 was admittedly employed under the contractor. It was further urged that as BSNL is a 100% Government of India undertaking, the competent forum to adjudicate such dispute would be the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal ('the CGIT' hereinafter). However, the learned Labour Court, by its order dated 07.10.2022, rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the order passed below Exhibit 13 and to transfer the proceedings to the learned CGIT.
4. Heard the learned advocate Ms.P.J.Davavala for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Kamani for the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Davavala submits that the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/25950/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Payment of Wages Act has been repealed and replaced by the Code of Wages, 2019. Learned advocate Mr. Davavala submits that under Section 2(d) thereof, the definition of 'Appropriate Government' specifically includes the telecommunication sector, and therefore the jurisdiction would lie with the learned CGIT. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Davavala that, as per Notification dated 18.02.2013, BSNL is a 100% Government-owned Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) and is under the administrative control of the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. Learned advocate Ms. Davavala, therefore, contends that the Central Government is the 'Appropriate Government' in respect of BSNL, and consequently, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Learned advocate Ms. Davavala submits that without considering the aforesaid material aspects, the learned Labour Court erroneously passed the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside by allowing the present petition.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Kamani submits that the reliance placed on the Notification dated 18.02.2013 as well as the contention regarding repeal of the Payment of Wages Act by the Code of Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/25950/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Wages, 2019 was not raised before the learned authority, and therefore, the learned authority had no opportunity to examine or decide the issue on that line. Learned advocate Ms. Kamani further submits that it is within the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court to decide the case under the Payment of Wages Act, more particularly when not only the present petitioner but also the contractor is impleaded as a party to the proceedings. She therefore submits that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed below Exhibit 13.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on examining the reasons recorded, it emerges that the learned Labour Court has rejected the application filed below Exhibit 13, challenging its jurisdiction, only on the ground that under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the definition of 'Appropriate Government' does not specifically provide that, in the case of BSNL, the Central Government would be the appropriate government.
8. It further emerges that the contention regarding repeal of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by the Code on Wages Act, 2019 was never raised before Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/25950/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined the learned Labour Court, and therefore, the learned Court had no occasion to deal with the said argument advanced on behalf of the present petitioner.
9. At this stage, definition provided under section 2(d) of the Appropriate Government in the Code on Wages Act, 2019 is required to be referred, which is reproduced herein below:
"2(d):appropriate Government" means, --
(i) in relation to, an establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or the establishment of railways, mines, oil field, major ports, air transport service, telecommunication, banking and insurance company or a corporation or other authority established by a Central Act or a central public sector undertaking or subsidiary companies set up by central public sector undertakings or autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, including establishment of contractors for the purposes of such establishment, corporation or other authority, central public sector undertakings, subsidiary companies or autonomous bodies, as the case may be, the Central Government;
(ii) in relation to any other establishment, the State Government;
10. It also emerges that the Notification dated 18.02.2013, which has been placed on record before this Court, was not part of the record before the learned Labour Court. In absence thereof, the learned Labour Court had no occasion to examine the matter in light of the said Notification and render its decision Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/25950/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined accordingly. In that background, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application filed below Exhibit 13 is required to be remanded to the learned authority for fresh consideration, after taking into account all the contentions now raised by the present petitioner before this Court.
11. Resultantly, these petitions are partly allowed. The learned Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act is directed to decide the application filed below Exhibit 9 afresh, in light of the definition provided under the Code on Wages, 2019 as well as the Notification dated 18.02.2013. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. The learned Court shall render its decision after considering the submissions advanced by both sides, in accordance with law. Since the petitions are pending since 2022, it is expected that the learned Labour Court shall decide the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:30 IST 2025