[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Tiwari Vasantkumar Ramkumar vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3291/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3291 of 2026
==========================================================
TIWARI VASANTKUMAR RAMKUMAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance :
MR K R MISHRA for the Petitioner.
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR for the Petitioner.
MR ANJU TRIVEDI for the Respondent No.2.
MR PRADIP D BHATE for the Respondent No.1.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 12/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate, Mr. K. R. Mishra for the
petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. Anuj Trivedi for respondent
No.2 - ONGC.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs :-
"[a] Your Lordships be pleased to allow this
petition with costs;
[b] Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.1 and 2 to pay the salary and other
admissible allowances at par with regular
employees who are doing the same work (copy at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3291/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Annexure-K) with effect from 10-01-1996 and pay
arrears from the differences of pay from 10-01-1996
to the date of filing of the present petition;"
2.1 In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition, the petitioner has
made the following averments :-
"2. The petitioner is an unfortunate employees of
the respondent no. 1 and 2 who has never been paid
salary at par with regular employees since his
joining on 10-01- 1995. The petitioner, more
particularly, had joined the service of the
respondent no. 2 on 10-01-1995 under the garb of
contractual employee and doing the work of
khalasi/helper, however, the petitioner has
remained continued as contractual employee since
his joining even till today despite changing of many
contractors and the petitioner is being paid
minimum wages declared by the competent
authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a copy
of payslip is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-A. The petitioner is designated as
unskilled worker as he has been doing the work of
khalasi/helper since his joining. This shows that the
petitioner is doing continuous work with the
respondent no. 2 despite the change in contract. It
is also pertinent to note that the appropriate
government under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as
CLRA Act) has, by notification dated 08.09.1994,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3291/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
prohibited the employment of contract labour in
various works in the establishment of the Oil and
Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) in the country
which includes the category of helper also, a copy
of the notification dated 08.09.1994 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-B.
3. The petitioner along with other employees
had, therefore, through the union, raised industrial
dispute regarding regularization before the
conciliation officer which has finally culminated into
reference (ITC) No.11 of 1997 [renumbered as
Reference (CGITA) No. 48 of 2004] before the
learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal at
Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred as learned CGIT),
who terms of references along with list of
employees are annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-C, which is pending for adjudication since
1997 and now, once again renumbered as
Reference (ITC) No. 366 of 2025 owing to transfer
of reference case to Gujarat Industrial Tribunal
wherein name of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 3/113 in
Reference (ITC) No. 366 of 2025. The above
reference is still pending and now the petitioner is
on the verge of retirement."
3. In view of the above averments, learned advocate, Mr.
Anuj Trivedi, drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the
petitioner's reference, with almost similar prayers, has been
pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3291/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Ahmedabad, since 1997. He therefore submitted that when the
petitioner has already availed the remedy since 1997, entertaining
the present petition at this juncture would result in multiplicity of
proceedings.
3.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has already
prayed for regularization before the Industrial Tribunal and,
therefore, if the said prayer is granted, the prayer made in the
present petition would automatically stand granted, as the prayer
for regularization before the Industrial Tribunal is a wider prayer.
He, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner has already
availed the appropriate remedy before the Industrial Tribunal since
1997, the present petition may not be entertained.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. K. R. Mishra, could not dispute
the aforesaid facts which are stated on oath by way of the
averments made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition. However, he
submitted that since the petitioner is on the verge of retirement,
this independent petition seeking separate reliefs may be
considered.
5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found
that the petitioner has already prayed for regularization before the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, and the said reference has
been pending since 1997. Considering the fact that the prayer for
regularization can be said to be a wider prayer, if such prayer is
granted, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present
petition would not survive.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3291/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
6. Therefore, I do not see any reason to entertain the
petition when the petitioner's reference before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal is already pending. Accordingly,
since the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy as
far back as 1997, the present petition is not required to be
entertained.
7. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to prefer
an appropriate application for speedy disposal of the aforesaid
Industrial Reference. In the event such an application is made, the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal shall consider the same,
taking into account the fact that the reference preferred by the
petitioner has been pending for more than 25 years.
8. Therefore, on the ground that the petitioner has
already availed the alternative remedy, and without entering into
the merits of the matters, the present petition is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
