Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Rajya Karamchari Sangh vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3340/2020 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3340 of 2020
==========================================================
GUJARAT RAJYA KARAMCHARI SANGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MOIZ K RAFIQUE(8043) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KETAN A DAVE(255) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Leave to delete the respondent No.4 pursuant to the
judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
Jogendrasinhji vs. State of Gujarat and others,
reported in (2015) 9 SCC 1.
2. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India with the following reliefs:
"9...
(A) THAT YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow and
admit the present Petition;
(B)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to declare the
Contractual Employment system for Workmen forming a
part of Petitioner's Cause as sham, bogus and
Unconstitutional and in same light may further allow the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3340/2020 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
workmans as represented by Petitioner as listed under
ANNEXURE B to continue their services with Respondent
Municipality; it is further prayed that Respondent
Municipality may regularize services of such workman as
listed in ANNEXURE - B;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay all the
procedures/actions and executive proceedings in context of
Contractual Employment Pending admission, hearing and
final disposal of the present Petition;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and
further Orders, as may be deemed fit and proper in favour
of the Petitioner, in the interest of Justice."
3. Learned advocate Mr. Rafique submits that, as the State
Government has exploited the petitioner by engaging
him on a contract basis, there is a clear violation of
Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a
direction is required to be issued for absorption and
regularization of his service, and since it is a violation of a
fundamental right, the writ petition is directly
maintainable.
4. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC and others vs. G.
Srinivas Reddy and others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC
674, the relevant paras are reproduced hereinbelow:
"9. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National
Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. [2001 (7) SCC 1], a
Constitution Bench of this Court overruled the decision in
Air India (supra) and held that where contract labour are
engaged in connection with the work in an establishment
and employment of such contract labour is prohibited by
issue of a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3340/2020 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
Act, there was no question of automatic absorption of the
contract labour working in the establishment and the
principal employer cannot be required to absorb the
contract labour. This Court also held that on a contractor
engaging contract labour in connection with the work
entrusted to him by the principal employer, it does not
culminate into a relationship of 'master and servant'
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
This Court held that whether the contract labour system
was genuine or a mere camouflage has to be adjudicated
only by the Industrial Tribunal/court and not by the High
Court in its writ jurisdiction.
10. We extract below the relevant portions of the
principles summed up by this Court :(SCC p.63, paras 125-
26)
"(5). On issuance of prohibition notification under Section
10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before
it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of
service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the
question whether the contractor has been interposed either
on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given
result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or
is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers
of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be
not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract
labour will have to be treated as employees of the
principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the
services of the contract labour in the establishment
concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by
it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.
126. We have used the expression "industrial adjudicator"
by design as determination of the questions aforementioned
requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3340/2020 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go
into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court
whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.
(6). If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect
of the establishment concerned has been issued by the
appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of
contract labour in any process, operation or other work of
any establishment and where in such process, operation or
other work of the establishment the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise
found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition
as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration
the age of the workers at the time of their initial
employment by the contractor and also relaxing the
condition as to academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications."
5. Considering the above decision, in the opinion of this
Court, the remedy lies before the learned Court below for
a declaration that the contract labour system is a
camouflage or sham, and to grant the relief of
absorption, as prayed for in the present petition, as the
same is required to adjudicate after evolution of
evidence, writ petition directly filed before this Court is
not maintainable.
6. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
