Gujarat High Court
Chief Officer, Una Nagarpalika vs President, Garvi Gujarat General ... on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1024 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
CHIEF OFFICER, UNA NAGARPALIKA
Versus
PRESIDENT, GARVI GUJARAT GENERAL KAMDAR MANDAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned
Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference No. 4 of 2015,
whereby directions were issued to the present peti-
tioner to grant the benefit of permanency upon com-
pletion of 240 days from the date of the respondent's
initial appointment, i.e., 09.02.2000, to fix the regular
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
pay scale, and to treat the benefits for the interreg-
num period as notional.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent
was appointed on a daily-wage basis with the peti-
tioner on 09.06.2000, and his services came to be
terminated on 26.09.2002. The said termination was
challenged by filing Reference No. 42 of 2003, which
was partly allowed in favour of the respondent on
13.08.2012, whereby directions were issued to rein-
state the respondent with continuity of service but
without back wages. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
Special Civil Application No. 14795 of 2012 and allied
matters before this Court challenging the said award.
During the pendency of the petition, the respondent
was reinstated on 10.01.2013. Subsequently, the pe-
tition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 28.03.2023. Upon reinstatement, the respon-
dent filed a second reference being Reference (T) No.
4 of 2015, seeking the benefit of regularization,
which was allowed in favour of the respondent, and
the same is the subject matter of challenge in the
present petition.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Tushar Sheth for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya for the
respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
4. Learned advocate Mr.Sheth submits that as the ap-
pointment was made without following the due re-
cruitment rules and he was reinstated in view of the
award passed by the learned labour Court. Learned
advocate Mr.Sheth submits that without considering
the same, the learned labour Court has awarded the
Reference in favour of the respondent therefore, the
same is required to be set aside by allowing the
present petition.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya, appear-
ing for the respondent, submits that the petitioner
had been serving since 2000 and, pursuant to the
award passed by the learned Labour Court granting
continuity of service, he was reinstated on
10.01.2013. It is submitted by the learned advocate
Mr.Ghavariya that the learned Labour Court, after
considering all the evidence on record, rightly
granted the benefit of permanency. Learned advo-
cate Mr. Ghavariya further submits that in a recent
decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Jaggo vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3826, and in view of the order passed by
this Court in the case of Dwarka Municipality vs.
Mantri, Jamnagar Jilla Majdoor Sangh, reported
in rendered in the Special Civil Application No.3556 of
2021, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
of this Court, identically situated employees were
granted the benefit of regularization. Therefore, in
light of the aforesaid settled position, no interference
is warranted, and the petition deserves to be dis-
missed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and
upon examining the reasons recorded, it is an undis-
puted fact that the respondent has been serving with
the petitioner since 09.06.2000 and, after his termi-
nation on 26.09.2002, was reinstated on 10.01.2013
pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour
Court, which also granted the benefit of continuity of
service along with the direction for reinstatement.
The learned Labour Court has observed in the im-
pugned order that although an application for pro-
duction of the sanctioned set-up was filed at Exhibit
30, during the cross-examination of the petitioner's
witness at Exhibit 29, it was admitted that no sanc-
tioned set-up of the petitioner establishment was pro-
duced. In the said cross-examination, it was further
admitted that, as per the sanctioned set-up, there
were six to seven posts; however, despite the assur-
ance to produce the same, it was not produced. In
these circumstances, the learned Labour Court drew
an adverse inference, holding that had the sanc-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
tioned set-up been produced, it might have gone
against the case of the petitioner.
7. In addition, the learned Court has recorded a finding
that the work performed by the present respondent
was of a perennial nature and that the workmen were
exploited by not being paid wages equivalent to
those paid to regular employees for the same work.
8. This Court has referred the recent decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Jaggo V/s. Union of India
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held the Para Nos.10 to 17
and 19 to 28 as under.
"10. Having given careful consideration to the
submissions advanced and the material on record, we
find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted
service, for periods extending well beyond ten years,
cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their
initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The
essence of their employment must be considered in
the light of their sustained contribution, the integral
nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence
suggests their entry was through any illegal or
surreptitious route.
11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were
engaged in performing essential duties that were
indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the
offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC).
Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were
responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and
a conducive working environment within the office
premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common
areas--a set of responsibilities that directly
contributed to the basic operational functionality of
the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi
(with additional functions akin to those of a Mali),
was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks,
including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises,
and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers,"
the appellants performed these essential tasks on a
daily and continuous basis over extensive periods,
ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades.
Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in
nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to
the responsibilities typically associated with
sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not
engage any other personnel for these tasks during
the appellants' tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not
regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work
performed by the appellants was perennial and
fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The
recurring nature of these duties necessitates their
classification as regular posts, irrespective of how
their initial engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these
same tasks to private agencies after the appellants'
termination demonstrates the inherent need for
these services. This act of outsourcing, which
effectively replaced one set of workers with another,
further underscores that the work in question was
neither temporary nor occasional.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants'
services, following dismissal of their Original
Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and
devoid of any justification. The termination letters,
issued without prior notice or explanation, violated
fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a
settled principle of law that even contractual
employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
adverse action is taken against them, particularly
when their service records are unblemished. In this
case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be
heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their
dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of
dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing
tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the
pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order
from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status
quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such
actions not only contravened judicial directives but
also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to
acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to
regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over
their long tenures further solidifies their claim for
regularization. At no point during their engagement
did the respondents raise any issues regarding their
competence or performance. On the contrary, their
services were extended repeatedly over the years,
and their remuneration, though minimal, was
incrementally increased which was an implicit
acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance.
The respondents' belated plea of alleged
unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought
and lacks credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to educational
qualifications, we find it untenable in the present
context. The nature of duties the appellants
performed--cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and
gardening--does not inherently mandate formal
educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely
on educational criteria that were never central to
their engagement or the performance of their duties
for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves
have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were
not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization.
The appellants' long-standing satisfactory
performance itself attests to their capability to
discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
formal educational requirements an unreasonable
hurdle.
***
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the
appellants' roles were not only essential but also
indistinguishable from those of regular employees.
Their sustained contributions over extended periods,
coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant
equitable treatment and regularization of their
services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their
arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice
and must be rectified.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees
who have rendered long years of service fulfilling
ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its
instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to
prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments
that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not illegal but
possibly "irregular," and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a
fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular
basis can, over the time, transform what was
initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario
demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment
of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union
of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of
service to an employee whose appointment was
termed "temporary" but has performed the same
duties as performed by the regular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have
been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with
the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances
under which the appellants were employed and have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
continued their service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that have
accrued over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was based on a
specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent
circular, followed by a selection process involving
written tests and interviews, which distinguishes
their case from the appointments through back door
entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R.
1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance
with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be
said to have been made illegally if they had followed
the procedures of regular appointments such as
conduct of written examinations or interviews as in
the present case..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants' engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal.
Courts must look beyond the surface labels and
consider the realities of employment: continuous,
long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence
of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments.
In that light, refusing regularization simply because
their original terms did not explicitly state so, or
because an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers' rights and job security. In the private sector,
the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and
fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized
for exploiting workers and undermining labour
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear
an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public
sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair
treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational
Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to
provide stable employment and to observe
obligations concerning employment stability and
social International Labour Organization- Tripartite
Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational
Enterprises and Social Policy. security. It emphasizes
that enterprises should assume a leading role in
promoting employment security, particularly in
contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate
long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in
the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves
as a pertinent example from the private sector,
illustrating the consequences of misclassifying
employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this
case, Microsoft classified certain workers as
independent contractors, thereby denying them
employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in
fact, common-law employees and were entitled to
the same benefits as regular employees. The Court
noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees
or independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)
benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This
judgment underscores the principle that the nature
of the work performed, rather than the label
assigned to the worker, should determine
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
employment status and the corresponding rights and
benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying
such misclassifications and ensuring that workers
receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or seasonal
needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism
to evade long- term obligations owed to employees.
These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged
for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to
the functioning of an institution are often labeled as
"temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles
mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the
principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality
or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees
often find themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or incremental
pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it
is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate
claims of long-serving employees. This judgment
aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and
"irregular" appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is
being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even
in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment
of cases where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's spirit
and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable services
over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it
is imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to
the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job
security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This
approach aligns with international standards and
sets a positive precedent for the private sector to
follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the
appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by
the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the
original application is allowed to the following
extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are
quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty
forthwith and their services regularised forthwith.
However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any
pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they
have not worked for but would be entitled to
continuity of services for the said period and the
same would be counted for their post-retiral
benefits."
9. This Court has also referred the decision rendered in
the case of Dwarka Municipality V/s Mantri, Jam-
nagar Jilla Majdoor Sangh & Anr. rendered in the
Special Civil Application No.3556 of 2021, which was
confirmed by the Division Bench in the LPA No. 421
of 2025, wherein the Division Bench has relied on the
decision rendered in the case of Shripal and An-
other V/s. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and others
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
rendered in Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 has ob-
served the para No.9 as under.
"9. In light of the aforesaid established facts, we may
now refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the recent judgment of Shripal and Others
(supra). The Supreme Court, after considering the
Constitution Bench judgment in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, has held as
under: -
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent
absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing
such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma
Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are
"illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being
eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions.
More importantly, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Uma Devi cannot serve
as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting
for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no true
contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for
permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban
on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain
muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's
failure to furnish such records --despite directions to do
so--allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be dismissed
summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a
genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would
be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
"temporary" employment practices as done by a recent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1024/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the
following paragraphs:
10. Having considered all the submissions and the
law laid down by the Apex Court in recent decisions,
this Court is of the considered opinion that no error
has been committed by the learned Reference Court
in granting the benefit of permanency therefore, no
interference is required and the matter is required to
be dismissed.
11. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
