[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mody Diliplumar Babulal vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3706/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3706 of 2026
==========================================================
MODY DILIPLUMAR BABULAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K R MISHRA(6312) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANUJ TRIVEDI WITH MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 17/03/2026
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 this 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 Annexure-K) with
effect from 01-04-1995 and pay arrears from the
differences of pay from 01-04-1995 to the date of filing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3706/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
of the present petition;
(c) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and
further relief, as the nature and circumstances of the
present case may require.
4. 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 04-01-
1994. The petitioner, more particularly, had joined the
service of the respondent no. 2 on 04-01-1994 under the
garb of contractual employee and doing the work of
peon, 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 clerical work since 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, prohibited the employment of contract
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3706/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
labour in various works in the establishment of the Oil
and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) in the country
which includes the category of clerk 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. 3/41 in Reference (ITC) No. 366
of 2025. The above reference is still pending and now the
petitioner is on the verge of retirement."
5. 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,
Ahmedabad, since 1997. He therefore submitted that when the
petitioner has already availed the remedy since 1997,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3706/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
entertaining the present petition at this juncture would result
in multiplicity of proceedings.
5.1. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3706/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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.
8. Therefore, I do not see any reason to entertain this
petition when the petitioner's references 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.
8.1. 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.
9. Therefore, on the ground that the petitioner has already
availed the alternative remedy, and without entering into the
merits of the matter, the present petition is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
