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. p. 2 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. p. 3 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 p. 4 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 p. 5 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 p. 6