High Court of Gujarat
PAL KANHAIYALAL KHUSIYALversusUNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- 26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The petitions are dismissed as the petitioners have already availed the alternative remedy before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, making the present reliefs redundant.
Summary
Jadav Maheshkumar Melabhai, a contractual peon employed by ONGC since April 1994, filed a series of special civil applications seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and ONGC to regularize his employment and pay salary arrears from April 1995. He alleged that despite performing the same work as regular employees, he was paid only minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and cited a 1994 notification under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1972 prohibiting contract labour in ONGC. The petitioner had earlier raised the same grievance before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in 1997, where the reference remains pending. The respondents argued that the pending industrial tribunal proceedings constitute an alternative remedy, and entertaining the present petitions would create multiplicity of proceedings. The Court held that the wider prayer for regularization before the CGIT, if granted, would render the present petitions moot, and therefore dismissed the petitions without reaching the merits. The Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to seek speedy disposal of the industrial tribunal reference.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain petitions for regularization and back wages when an alternative remedy before an industrial tribunal is already pending.
- Whether proceeding with the present petitions would result in multiplicity of proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regularization
- contractual employment
- mandamus
- industrial dispute
- alternative remedy
- multiplicity of proceedings
- Minimum Wages Act
- Contract Labour Act
- CGIT
- ONGC
Judgment
C/SCA/3187/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3187 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3106 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3121 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3191 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3196 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3238 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2789 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2798 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2815 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2817 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2853 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2892 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3020 of 2026
==========================================================
JADAV MAHESHKUMAR MELABHAI
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 : 10/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate, Mr. K. R. Mishra for the
petitioners and learned advocate, Mr. Anuj Trivedi for
respondent No.2 – ONGC.
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/3187/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026
2. Considering the fact that learned advocate, Mr. K. R.
Mishra, at the outset submitted that all these petitions involve
identical facts and the prayers are also identical, except for
the terms of reference, all these matters were taken up
together. Special Civil Application No. 3187 of 2026 was
treated as the lead matter and, therefore, the prayers and facts
are taken from the said petition.
3. By way of these petitions, the petitioner have 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
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.
Page 2 of 6
C/SCA/3187/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026
4. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition, the petitioners
have 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 01-04-
1994. The petitioner, more particularly, had joined the
service of the respondent no. 2 on 01-04-1994 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 work of peon 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, 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 peon also, a copy
of the notification dated 08-09-1994 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure-B.
Page 3 of 6
C/SCA/3187/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026
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. 3/40 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 petitioners have already availed the remedy since
1997, entertaining the present petitions at this juncture would
result in multiplicity of proceedings.
5.1. He further submitted that the petitioners have already
Page 4 of 6
C/SCA/3187/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026
prayed for regularization before the Industrial Tribunal and,
therefore, if the said prayer is granted, the prayer made in the
present petitions would automatically stand granted, as the
prayer for regularization before the Industrial Tribunal is a
wider prayer. He, therefore, submitted that since the
petitioners have already availed the appropriate remedy before
the Industrial Tribunal since 1997, the present petitions 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 petitioners are on the
verge of retirement, these independent petitions 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 petitioners have already prayed for
regularization before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, and the said references have 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 petitioners in the present petitions
Page 5 of 6
C/SCA/3187/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026
would not survive.
8. Therefore, I do not see any reason to entertain these
petitions when the petitioners’ references before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal are already pending.
Accordingly, since the petitioners have already availed the
alternative remedy as far back as 1997, the present petitions
are not required to be entertained.
8.1. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to prefer
an appropriate application for speedy disposal of the aforesaid
industrial references. In the event such an application is made,
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal shall consider the
same, taking into account the fact that the references preferred
by the petitioners have been pending for more than 25 years.
9. Therefore, on the ground that the petitioners have
already availed the alternative remedy, and without entering
into the merits of the matters, the present petitions are
dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/03/2026 18:25:28
Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.