TIWARI VASANTKUMAR RAMKUMARversusUNION OF INDIA

     C/SCA/3291/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




           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




                                      Page 1 of 5
      C/SCA/3291/2026                                                 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




                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,



                                           Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/3291/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




               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,


                                       Page 3 of 5
       C/SCA/3291/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




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.




                                    Page 4 of 5
         C/SCA/3291/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




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

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/03/2026 17:36:27




                                                        Page 5 of 5