[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Akhil Bahratiya Safai Mazdoor Congress vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16579 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16582 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
AKHIL BAHRATIYA SAFAI MAZDOOR CONGRESS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SUMAN MOTLA ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms. Suman Motla waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Kaushal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. These petitions are filed challenging the notice dated
12.11.2025, whereby the petitioners have been directed to
vacate the premises which they are using as their office. Under
the said notice, certain documents were called for. Since issue
involved in these petitions is same, with the consent of learned
advocates for the respective parties, the matters were heard
and decided together by this common judgment.
The details of each of the petition and the date of office
allotment as referred by the petitioner is stated hereunder: -
Sr. SCA No. Petitioner Name Office Page
No. Allotment Date No.
1. SCA/ AKHIL BAHRATIYA New Allotment 26
16579/2025 SAFAI MAZDOOR in 26.02.2015
CONGRESS
16582/2025 SAFAI KAMDAR
SANGATHAN
3. Brief facts as referred in the petitions are as under: -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
3. Brief facts as referred in the petitions are as under:-
3.1 Petitioners herein are registered trade Union under Indian
Trade Unions Act, 1926, having their registration Number.
3.2 It is case of the petitioners that they are registered Union
and working for the benefits of current and retired employees/
workmen working with Surat Municipal Corporation. It is
further case of the petitioners that since many years the
respondent - Surat Municipal Corporation has allotted an office
place as referred in the table above and despite such official
allotment, the action of vacation of office is undertaken by
issuance of notice dated 12.11.2025 followed by forceful
vacation of their respective offices, leading the petitioners to
file this petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi for the petitioners,
learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Suman Motla for
respondent No. 1. and learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya
for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are allotee of the office premises,
in the building owned by Municipal Corporation and this fact
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
is evident from the communication dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure
H, Page No. 20). Referring to the said letter, learned advocate
submitted that, it is true that by said letter, the petitioners
were directed to shift at some other place, however the very
letter justifies, the petitioners' lawful occupation on their
respective offices and therefore, the action taken by directing
him to vacate the premises without following due process of
law is contrary to the settled legal position and deserves to be
deprecated solely on this ground. Further, pursuant to the
communication dated 12.11.2025, the petitioners were called
upon to produce certain documents. The petitioner by response
dated 18.11.2025, relied upon an order dated 26.02.2015 to
justify their lawful possession of the premises in question
owned by Surat Municipal Corporation. Despite that, one more
communication dated 18.11.2025 was served upon the
petitioner to vacate, followed by communication dated
19.11.2025.
5.1. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that when
petitioners are in lawful possession, the respondent-Corporation
ought not to have directed to vacate the premises without
following the due process of law. Moreover, reference of any
provision is not made in the communication; therefore, it is
not clear that under which provision of law an action of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
vacation of premises is under taken when the premises was
lawfully given to the petitioners. Moreover, by communication
dated 26.02.2015, the petitioners were directed to shift to one
another building for the reasons stated therein. This itself
justifies the legal possession by the petitioners and therefore,
without following any due process of law, action taken by the
respondent - Corporation being illegal, deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
5.2. In relation to maintainability of petition, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, learned advocate submitted
that petitioners' case would not fall under Section 2(k) of the
Act, and, therefore, this may not be termed as Industrial
Dispute.
5.3. Learned advocate thus submitted that action taken of
eviction of the petitioner's premises being illegal, it deserves to
be declared as illegal and further to hold that the possession
over the premises of the petitioners is legal.
6. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal
Pandya for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 referred to the prayer
clause at Paragraph No. 14 and submitted that, 19.11.2025
order is sought to be quashed. The order dated 19.11.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
refers to non-recognition of the documents submitted by the
petitioners. Another prayer seeks declaration of the premises in
possession of the petitioners as legal. The prayer sought of
declaration requires factual verification, and for such prayer
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would
not be maintainable. Further, the issue involved relates to
employees of the Surat Municipal Corporation and the same
would fall under Section 2(k) of the Act, and, therefore, the
petition would not be maintainable.
6.1. On merits, learned advocate submitted that under
communication dated 12.11.2025, the petitioners were directed
to produce certain documents. In response to the same, reply
dated 18.11.2025 was filed where reliance has been placed on
letter of allotment whereby the petitioners were directed to
shift to some other place. If the letter dated 26.02.2015 is
perused, it refers to dilapidated condition of some of the
building of the Municipal Corporation and therefore, need
arose to shift those offices to this premises. Despite that no
shifting was done by the petitioners of the premises of
Respondent-Corporation.
6.2. Vide letter dated 26.02.2015, the petitioners were
directed to shift their office, and thereafter communication
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
dated 12.11.2025 was served. Moreover, on 09.04.2015, the
Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation informed all
concern that on account of dilapidated condition of some of
the buildings of the Municipal Corporation, the offices situated
there are required to be shifted here, thus the petitioners were
aware of the situation. Further, the Corporation is not
collecting any rent from petitioners and even the electricity
and other incidental charges are paid by Surat Municipal
Corporation, therefore, the petitioners do not have any legal
right over the subject property. Thus, there being no legal
right over the property of Surat Municipal Corporation, these
petitions deserve to be rejected.
6.3. For maintainability of petitions, learned advocate Mr.
Pandya relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Premier Automobiles Limited, Bombay vs. Kamlekar
Shantaram Wadke Of Bombay reported in 1976(1) SCC 496
wherein the principle applicable to jurisdiction of Civil Court
in relation to an industrial dispute has been summarized.
7. Considered the submissions and the documents on record.
Admittedly, these petitions are filed challenging the action of
respondent - Corporation whereby the petitioners have been
directed to vacate the office they have occupied in the building
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
owned by Surat Municipal Corporation. This action was taken
after issuance of notice in the year 2015, followed by this
communication. By communication dated 12.11.2025, some
details were called from the petitioners and time was granted
to the petitioners to provide such documents. In response
thereto, the reply was filed and, in the reply, reliance was
placed on communication dated 26.02.2015, to submit that
since the subject premises was officially given to the
petitioners, the same cannot be vacated without following the
due process of law. However, if the communication dated
26.02.2015, is perused it refers to shifting of the petitioners to
some other place. The said communication in the opinion of
this Court cannot be the ground to justify that the petitioners
have legal right over the premises. The premises given for
usage cannot be termed as having legal occupation rights
particularly, when no rent or charges are paid by the
petitioners. Document of allotment is not placed by petitioners
and communication dated 26.02.2015 cannot be termed as an
allotment letter.
8. Moreover, the submission canvassed on behalf of
respondent - Corporation that petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would not be maintainable for the prayer
seeking declaration, merit acceptance.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
8.1. Further, in relation to the submission canvassed on behalf
of the petitioners that the communication is bereft of any legal
provision and without any reason, this Court is of the opinion
that when the petitioners failed in making out a case that they
were allotted office by SMC, other prayers are not to be
considered.
8.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premier
Automobiles Limited, Bombay (Supra) has held as under:-
"23 To sum up, the principles applicable to the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to an
industrial dispute may be stated thus:
(1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute
nor does it relate to enforcement of any other
right under the Act the remedy lies only in
the civil Court.
(2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute
arising out of a right or liability under the
general or common law and not under the
Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is
alternative, leaving it to the election of the
suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the
relief which is competent to be granted in a
particular remedy.
(3) If the industrial dispute relates to the
enforcement of a right or an obligation
created under the Act, then the only remedy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16579/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
available to the suitor is to get an
adjudication under the Act.
(4) If the right which is sought to be enforced
is a right created under the Act such as
Chapter VA then the remedy for its
enforcement is either Section 33C or the
raising of an industrial dispute, as the case
may be."
9. In view of above, the petitions are devoid of any merits
and are accordingly dismissed. Rule are discharged. No Costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
SHIVANI SHUKLA
