MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, AHMEDABAD JANMARG LTD.,versusKARNAVATI NAGARPARIVAHAN MAZDOOR SANGH

C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                        JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18730 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
         Approved for Reporting         Yes        No

==========================================================
 MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, AHMEDABAD JANMARG LTD.,
                                Versus
      KARNAVATI NAGARPARIVAHAN MAZDOOR SANGH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5,6,8,9
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR PRATIK P THAKKAR(6097) for the Respondent(s) No. 7
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                     Date : 24/08/2026
                                       JUDGMENT


1.     The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioner praying for following

reliefs:

                   "A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to
                   admit and allow the present petition;
                   B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
                   writ of certiorari and a writ in the nature of
                   certiorari to quash and set aside order dated
                   21.08.2017 passed in Misc. Application No.1
                   of 2017 by the Industrial Tribunal,
                   Ahmedabad;
                   C. Pending admission, hearing and final
                   disposal of this petition, Your Lordhips may
                   be pleased to stay the operation,
                   implementation and execution of order dated
                   21.08.2017 passed in Misc. Application No.1


                                         Page 1 of 9
C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                     JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




                   of 2017 by the Industrial Tribunal,
                   Ahmedabad;
                   D. Any other and further relief that may be
                   deemed fit and proper may please be
                   granted in the interest of justice."

2.      Heard learned advocate Ms. Dhara M. Shah for the

petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu for respondent

No.4, learned advocate Mr. Yogen M. Pandya for respondent No.1

and learned advocate Mr. Pratik P. Thakkar for the respondent

No.7.

3.      Brief facts of the present case are as under:-

        3.1. Respondent No.1 Union raised demands before

        learned Labour Commissioner, Gandhinagar. Upon failure

        report, the dispute was referred to the learned Industrial

        Tribunal, Ahmedabad for determining the demands of

        respondent No.1 – Union which are mainly summarised as

        under:-

               (i) that the workmen should be made permanent in Jan

               Marg Limited (BRTS) project and be considered as

               employees of Ahmedabad Janmarg Limited after 180

               days of the services and be granted benefits of

               permanent employees after 180 days.

               (ii) after 1st January 2012, workmen working under

                                     Page 2 of 9
C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




               legal/illegal contractors be given benefits according to

               their cadre on the basis of 6th pay commission.

               (iii) workmen working as Drivers, security, booking

               staff, Safai Kamdar, who are working as permanent

               nature be given Rs. 10,000/- from 1st January 2012.

               (iv) prepare Caderwise seniority list of workmen along

               with names of contractors currently working in the

               organization.

       3.2. The reference came to be dismissed for non-

       prosecution on 01.12.2016. Respondent No.1-Union filed

       restoration application under Rule 26(A) of the Industrial

       Disputes Act ('for short’ the Act’). The Restoration Application

       came to be allowed by learned Tribunal on 21.08.2017.

       Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner

       is before this Court by way of present petition.

4.     At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted

that respondent No.1 - Union entered into contract with respondent

No.2 which owns number of bus fleet and private buses for

operation within the city. Respondent No.1 Union has submitted

demand for regularisation under Section 10(1) of the Act which



                                     Page 3 of 9
C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Respondent Union applied

for interim relief during the pendency of the reference. The learned

Judge granted interim relief, as prayed for. Being aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner preferred Special Civil

Application No. 7329 of 2014 before this Court. By order dated

31.07.2014, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the

identity of the persons whose services are ordered not be

changed. Respondent No.8, contractor had declared that the

workmen were appointed either by respondent No.8 or agency

appointed by it.

5.     Thereafter, a purshis dated 31.08.2015 was submitted for

closure of evidence of Union, and stage was closed. Learned

Tribunal issued notice dated 29.12.2015 to Union. Thereafter one

Praful Patel appeared on behalf of the Union on 11.01.2016 and

on 22.08.2016 requested the Court to permit him to retire from the

proceedings. The learned Industrial Court passed an order on

20.12.2016 rejecting their reference. In restoration application, no

sufficient and cogent reasons were assigned by Union for not

remaining present in the reference proceedings. The reasons

assigned by Union is that Mr. Dipak Pandya was looking after



                                     Page 4 of 9
C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




proceedings and after his death there was no other person who

was conversant with facts to look after the reference proceedings,

which is factually incorrect statement because Mr. Dipak Pandya

had expired on 04.01.2014 and thereafter Mr. Praful Patel

appeared and represented Union from time to time. As no

sufficient cause is made out for restoration of the reference, the

learned Tribunal ought to have rejected the application.

6.     It is submitted that against the order of interim injunction

passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner approached

this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 7329 of 2014.

Upon the response of respondent No.8, it is observed by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the Special Civil Application that

workmen were appointed by respondent No.8 or by its agency and

workmen were not appointed by the petitioner. It is therefore

submitted that there is no lis between petitioner and employees of

respondent company/contractors. The learned Tribunal while

granting restoration application has not considered the aforesaid

facts and erroneously granted the Application. It is therefore

submitted that the present petition be allowed and the impugned

order be quashed and set aside. Except above, no other



                                     Page 5 of 9
C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




submissions were canvassed by learned advocate for the

petitioner.

7.     Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.1 Union

contended that the Union had raised demand for regularization by

way of reference. Pending the reference, the President of the

Union who was looking after the proceedings had expired.

Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Pandya was instructed to

appear in the reference proceedings but he did not remain present

and thereafter the Union appointed another learned advocate Mr.

Praful Patel to represent Union. The respondent No.1 was not

aware about the status of the reference and therefore, could not

remain present. It is submitted that learned advocate Mr. Praful

Patel retired from proceedings but learned Tribunal did not issue

any notice to Union and therefore, there was no opportunity of

being heard given to Union to prove its case. The learned Tribunal

has adopted a reasonable and justice oriented approach and

allowed the application for restoration.

8.     It is submitted that the original reference proceedings is

required to be decided on merits and not on technical grounds.

The Union may not be deprived of their rights to claim


                                     Page 6 of 9
C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




regularization and the claim for the employees of the contractor to

be paid as if they are working with Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd. If an

opportunity is given to prove the case, it would serve the purpose

of justice and therefore the petition be dismissed. It is further

submitted that the respondent No.1 is ready and willing to co-

operate with the learned Tribunal for expeditious hearing of the

reference as the reference is of 2013. Except above, no other

submissions were canvassed by learned advocate for respondent

No.1.

9.      I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned

advocates for respective parties and perused papers placed on

record. The respondent – Union raised demands for regularization

by way of complaint before the learned Labour Commissioner,

Gandhinagar. Due to non-settlement of dispute, it was referred to

the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The reference came

to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 01.12.2016. The Union

thereafter filed restoration application, which came to be allowed

on 21.08.2017. The learned Tribunal was weighed with fact that

the reference proceedings proceeded ex parte. Union submitted

statement of claim against which petitioner as well as other



                                     Page 7 of 9
C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                     JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




respondents submitted their respective replies. On 25.02.2014

below Exhibit – 11, learned Tribunal passed an order which was

assigned by petitioner by way of Special Civil Application No. 7329

of 2014. Prayer was made by respondent No.7 for closure of

evidence which was allowed. Thereafter, the Union appeared

through one learned advocate Mr. Praful Patel, who also retired

subsequently         from      the   proceedings.   Petitioner    and     other

respondents contractors also closed their side and did not lead any

evidence. Upon the application for restoration, respondent Union

pointed out reasons for not remaining present in reference

proceedings. The emphasis has been laid on the fact that Shri

Dipak Pandya was having knowledge of the proceedings expired

in an accident in the year 2014, and thereafter the learned

advocate Mr. Praful Patel retired as an advocate on behalf of

respondent Union.

10.    The undisputed fact surfaces on record that the reference

proceedings are not decided on merits and have been dismissed

for want of prosecution. Granting of an application for restoration

upon satisfaction of sufficient cause is discretion of the Court. The

sufficient cause is not explained in the rules as well as in the



                                      Page 8 of 9
 C/SCA/18730/2017(GJHC240535512017)                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026




Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause means cause which is a

reasonable explanation which satisfies the Court for granting an

opportunity to a litigant who has failed to lead any evidence.

11.       Therefore, in my view, I do not find any reason to interfere in

the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Labour

Court. Resultantly, the present petition stands disposed of. No

order as to costs. The learned Labour Court is hereby directed to

complete the Reference proceedings within a period of six months

from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is hereby directed

that the application shall be decided strictly on merits. Both the

parties are directed to give full co-operation without asking for

unnecessary adjournments. Rule is discharged accordingly.



                                                                                          (D. M. DESAI,J)
SHIVANI SHUKLA / MUSKAN

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/08/2026 17:30:48




                                                   Page 9 of 9