TRIPATHI NAISHADH JAYANTIBHAIversusUNION OF INDIA

     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