Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Govindbhai Dhapa on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 523 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI DHAPA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,2,3,4,6,6.1,7,8
MR.KRUTARTH K PANDYA(7092) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates Mr.Jwalit
Soneji and Mr.Krutarth Pandya waives notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondents.
2. The present petition is preferred under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award
dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court,
Bhavnagar, in Reference (Demand) Case No. 1 of 2004.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
By the said award, the learned Labour Court directed
the present petitioner to consider the services of the
respondent for the purpose of regularization with effect
from 02.12.2004, the date of the Government Resolution
issued by the Department of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare. Further, the petitioner was directed to pay the
differential amount of pay from the date of the award
within 30 days from the date of its publication. The
Court also directed that the respondent be extended the
benefits of regularization from 02.12.2004, and the
arrears of salary be paid from the date of the said
resolution. Additionally, the learned Labour Court
directed that the respondent shall be entitled to
consequential benefits such as pension, gratuity, and
leave encashment from the date of joining. It was further
observed by the learned Court that respondent No.6,
namely Late Mr. Mansukhbhai Muljibhai Solanki died on
11.06.2016, during the pendency of the reference.
Accordingly, the learned Court directed that the services
of respondent No.6 be regularized with effect from
02.12.2004, and the differential wages be paid to his
legal heirs. The terminal benefits, including gratuity and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
leave encashment, were also directed to be paid from
the date of his initial appointment. The pay fixation was
ordered to be completed within a period of 30 days from
the date of publication of the award.
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
respondents had been engaged by the petitioner
department as Daily Wagers and had rendered services
for a period exceeding 14 years. As they were not
granted the benefits of permanency, they raised an
industrial dispute, which culminated in Reference (LCD)
No. 1 of 2004 before the learned Industrial Court.
During the pendency of the said reference, interim
directions were issued to the effect that the service
conditions of the respondents shall not be altered and
that status quo be maintained. Subsequently, the
petitioner department produced the attendance records
of the concerned workmen, purportedly indicating that
as on the date of filing the reference, none of the
respondents had completed 240 days of continuous
service in any calendar year. On this basis, it was
contended that the respondents were not entitled to the
benefits of the Government Resolution dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
02.12.2004. Learned Court, after rejecting the evidence
which are adduced by both the parties has awarded the
reference in favour of the respondent by granting the
above mentioned reliefs, which is subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya for the State and
learned advocate Mr.Jwalit Soneji as well as learned
advocate Mr.Krutarth Pandya for the concerned
workmen.
5. Learned AGP, Ms. Pandya, appearing for the petitioner,
submits that the learned Labour Court has granted the
benefits of the Government Resolution dated
02.12.2004, which is based on the earlier Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988. As per the said resolution,
completion of 240 days of continuous service in each
year is a mandatory precondition for regularization.
Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that that a specific
contention was raised before the Labour Court to the
effect that none of the respondents had completed 240
days of service in any calendar year. However, the
Labour Court, while overlooking this submission and the
documentary evidence produced by the department,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
proceeded to award the reference in favour of the
respondents. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits as on the
date of the award, there was no sanctioned set-up.
However, learned court has directed to regularize the
service in absence of the sanctioned setup, therefore,
impugned award deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned advocates appearing for the
respondents submits that, insofar as the issue of
sanctioned set-up is concerned, documentary evidence
was placed on record indicating the existence of vacant
posts within the sanctioned set-up. Therefore, it is
submitted that no interference with the impugned award
is required on this ground. It is further submitted that
during the pendency of the reference, the learned
Labour Court passed an interim order dated 25.06.2004
directing the parties to maintain status quo. There is no
dispute that, pursuant to the said order, each of the
respondent employees has continuously completed 240
days of service in each year thereafter. Learned
advocates appearing for the respondents submit that, if
the impugned award is modified to the extent of
granting benefits from the date of reference till the date
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
of status quo order i.e. 25.06.2009, then the workman
would not have any objection.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the record, it emerges that upon filing of the
reference before the learned Labour Court seeking the
benefits of regularization, the petitioner produced the
attendance records indicating that, as on the date of
filing the reference, none of the respondent employees
had completed 240 days of continuous service in any
calendar year. It is further noted that the learned
Labour Court, during the pendency of the proceedings,
granted an interim order of status quo. It is an
undisputed fact that pursuant to the said order, the
respondents have continued in service and remain in
service as on date. It is also not in dispute that all the
respondent employees have completed 240 days of
continuous service subsequent to 25.06.2004. The
attendance records substantiating this fact have been
produced by the learned AGP, Ms. Pandya, and the same
is directed to be taken on record. It is also not disputed
that the requirements of the sanction setup is falsified
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
from the evidence which are produced before learned
labour court from Exh.71, which is the sanction setup
suggesting that the post remained vacant.
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 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, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common
areas--a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to
the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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 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"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the
worker, should determine 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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.
• 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
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. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, as well as the consent given by the
respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the interest
of justice would be adequately served if the direction
contained in paragraph No. 3 of the impugned award is
modified to the extent that the benefits of regularization
and other consequential benefits shall be granted from
the date of the status quo order, i.e., 25.06.2004, instead
of the date of joining. A similar modification is required
in paragraph No. 4 of the award in respect of the
employee who expired during the pendency of the
reference proceedings.
10. In the above background, petition is partly allowed. The
impugned award is modified to the extent that all the
terminal benefits be granted from 25.06.2004. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/523/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/202511 pt
undefined
remaining portion of the impugned award remains
unaltered.
11. It is needless to say that as per the directions issued by
the learned Labour Court, all the benefits would be
considered as notional from the status quo order i.e.
25.06.2004 till the date of award.
12. Petitioner is directed to comply with the directions
issued by this Court as well as by the learned labour
court within a period of 12 weeks preferably.
13. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
