Gujarat High Court
Dwarka Municipality Through Its Chief ... vs Mantri Shree, Jamnagar Jilla Majdoor ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 421 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3556 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 421 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 434 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3589 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 434 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3589 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 435 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3825 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 435 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3825 of 2021
=============================================
DWARKA MUNICIPALITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER
Versus
MANTRI SHREE, JAMNAGAR JILLA MAJDOOR SANGH & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 01/05/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, 1865 and are directed against different but
identical awards.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
A. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 421 of 2025, the award
dated 28.02.2017 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Jamnagar, in Reference (IT) No. 105 of 2012 (Old Case No.
157 of 2001), pertaining to 12 employees, who were
ordered to be regularized by the Industrial Tribunal on
Class-IV posts.
B. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 434 of 2025, the award
dated 13.04.2018 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Jamnagar, in Reference (IT) No. 57 of 2016, pertaining to
one employee, who was ordered to be regularized by the
Industrial Tribunal on the post of Driver.
C. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 435 of 2025, the award
dated 28.02.2017 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Jamnagar, in Reference (IT) No. 104 of 2012 (Old Case No.
156 of 2001), pertaining to 15 employees, who were
ordered to be regularized by the Industrial Tribunal on
Class-IV posts.
2. The issue involved in the captioned Letters Patent
Appeals pertains to the directions issued by the Industrial
Tribunal directing the Dwarka Municipality to regularize the
workmen in service.
3. Learned advocates appearing for the appellants have
submitted that the judgments and awards passed by the
Tribunal, and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, are
required to be quashed and set aside, since both the Tribunal
and the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
there are no sanctioned Class-IV posts available in the setup of
the Nagarpalika. It has been submitted that the setup was
sanctioned by the State Government on 05.04.2013 for 136
posts, and hence, the respondent employees cannot be
ordered to be regularized on Class-IV posts. It is further
submitted that the respondents were appointed as daily
wagers at the relevant time, and merely because they were
engaged by the Nagarpalika for a considerable period, they are
not entitled to regularization.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, appearing for one of the
appellants, has invited the attention of this Court to the
observations recorded by the learned Single Judge, and has
submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court would not apply in
the case of the appellants. It is submitted that, as per the
decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mahuva
Municipality vs. Maheshbhai Jinabhai Sarvayya (passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1036 of 2016), the Municipality has
no power to fill up more than 50% of the sanctioned posts.
Thus, it is further submitted that out of 133 sanctioned posts,
27 posts have been filled in and 106 posts are still vacant.
Thereafter, since Dwarka has been recognized as a district, it is
not open for the Municipality to regularize the respondents on
Class-IV posts. Accordingly, it is urged that the present appeals
may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge and the impugned awards
passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. J. Y. Rajguru, appearing
for the respondent employees, while placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.12.2024
passed in SLP (Civil) No. 5580 of 2024 in the case of Jaggo vs.
Union of India and Others, and further in the case of Shripal
and Another vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad dated 31.01.2025
passed in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, has submitted that, in
fact, since the respondents have been working for more than
25 to 30 years, they are entitled to be regularized in service.
6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
7. It is not in dispute that all the respondents are working on
posts such as Office Peon, Sanitary Supervisor, Talati, Peon-
cum-Office Clerk, Driver, etc. They were initially appointed
between the years 1983 and 1996 as daily wagers and were
subsequently appointed as work-charge employees. As on
today, they continue to work in this capacity. It is not the case
of the appellant - Nagarpalika that no work is available, or that
the Nagarpalika is not taking any work from them, or that such
work is not perennial in nature.
8. The learned Single Judge has also recorded the evidence
of Shri Jayesh Patel, witness for the respondent Nagarpalika,
below Exhibit 47, wherein he admitted that no recruitment
process has taken place in the last 25 years, to the best of his
knowledge. It is further recorded that the Nagarpalika's set up
was sanctioned by the State Government in the year 2013 for
136 posts, of which only 27 posts have been filled in, leaving
106 posts still vacant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
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
judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the
following paragraphs:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
"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
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
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 labelled 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
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."
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to
justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-
engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in
minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated
precariousness:
the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet
still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the
importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization,
it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back
wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation
evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of
the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that
their services were terminated without adhering to Sections
6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that
they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers
cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of
municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit
consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of
statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed,
bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of
workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular
roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they
confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage
engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is
hereby set aside with the following directions:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services,
effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All
orders or communications terminating their services are
quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be
treated as continuing in service from the date of their
termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity
in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the
Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to
the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from
the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from
the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be
counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits,
such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III.
Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall
be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their
discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The
Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within
three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The
Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and
transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen
within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly
considering the fact that they have performed perennial
municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing
regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or
procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were
never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly
situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that
sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the
Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary
administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees
are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to
statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are
allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam
Ghaziabad are dismissed.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. No orders as to
costs."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
10. In the case before the Supreme Court, the workmen were
terminated from service after being engaged for a
considerably long period. The Supreme Court held that the
appellant-workmen, who had rendered several years of service
spanning more than a decade, cannot be summarily dismissed
merely because they failed to furnish certain records, even if
such failure occurred despite directions from the Labour Court.
11. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Jaggo (supra), it is held that the misuse
of temporary labours i.e. the employees engaged for work, or
contractual even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees, such misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and the benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. The Supreme
Court has also highlighted that there is lack of career
progression in case of temporary employees and they often
find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions or incremental pay rises. The
Supreme Court has further deprecated the practice of
outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
After setting aside the termination of such workmen, the
Supreme Court has directed the employer to initiate the fair
and transparent process for regularizing the appellant -
workmen. It is further directed by the Supreme Court that in
assessing regularization, the employer shall not impose
educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such
requirement were never applied to the appellant - workmen or
to similarly situated regular employees in the past. In fact the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/421/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
Supreme Court has directed for sanctioning of the vacancies
to ensure that the long time temporary employees are not
indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and
equitable loss.
12. In both the cases of Shripal and other (supra) and
Jaggo (Supra), the Supreme Court was directed the
employers to regularize the workmen, who had been engaged
for decades. The legal principle enunciated in these judgments
squarely applies to the present case.
13. Hence, we find no reason to interfere either with the
awards passed by the Tribunal or with the judgment and
orders passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the said
awards.
14. On an overall analysis of the facts, the Letters Patent
Appeals stand rejected. We direct the appellants to implement
the awards and confer the benefits to the respondents within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
15. As a consequence, the connected Civil Applications are
disposed of accordingly.
16. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in
each of the connected matters.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
MAHESH/
