Gujarat High Court
Chief Officer, Una Nagarpalika vs President, Garvi Gujarat General ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1288 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/1024/2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1288 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
CHIEF OFFICER, UNA NAGARPALIKA
Versus
PRESIDENT, GARVI GUJARAT GENERAL KAMDAR MANDAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Murali N Devnani for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Krishnan M Ghavariya for the respondent no.1.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined
2. This appeal is filed under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 against the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.1024 of 2024.
3. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that one - workman
- Govindbhai Jivabhai Mevada was working in the Water Supply Department as Daily-wager - Labourer in the appellant - Nagarpalika from 09.06.2000 and thereafter, he was removed from the service on 26.09.2002. Being aggrieved, a Reference Case No.42 of 2003 was instituted before the Labour Court, Junagadh which was partly allowed by the Judgment and Award dated 13.08.2012 whereby, the action of the appellant - Nagarpalika of removing the workman from the service was held to be illegal and it was further ordered that the workman be reinstated on its original post with continuity of service without back-wages.
4. The appellant - Nagarpalika preferred Special Civil Application No.15015 of 2012 before this Court challenging the Judgment and Award dated 13.08.2012. This Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice K. S. Jhaveri) by the Order dated 10.01.2013 granted the stay of the Award qua continuity of service on the condition that the workman to be reinstated in service within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. Accordingly, the appellant - Nagarpalika reinstated the workman from 22.02.2013 and the workman started working as daily-
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined wager and he was being paid as per minimum wages. Thereafter, the Special Civil Application No.15015 of 2012 came to be dismissed by the order dated 28.03.2023 and the Appellant - Nagarplika has not challenged the Order passed in the said petition and the same has achieved finality.
5. It appears that the workman meanwhile instituted Reference (D) Case No.04 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Junagadh claiming benefits as available to regular employee and the pay-scale of the regular employee on premise of equal pay for equal work. The said reference was partly allowed by the order dated 03.06.2023 and the Labour Court directed the appellant to regularise the service of the workman by paying the pay-scale at par with regular employee considering the date of joining as 09.02.2000 and further directed to fix the pay without yearly increment since it was held that the benefit to be considered as notional, after fixing of the pay-scale in regular pay-scale and no arrears to be paid to the workman.
6. Appellant - Nagarpalika being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the Labour Court preferred Special Civil Application No.1024 of 2024. The learned Single Judge, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, held that there is no error committed by the Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined Labour Court in granting the benefit of permanency and the petition was dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Nagarpalika has preferred this appeal.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Murali N Devnani for the appellant - Nagarpalika submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have granted the regularization from the date of joining i.e. on 09.02.2000 as the workman had worked only for 240 days for almost two and a half years. It was submitted that at the best service of the workman would be regularized on completion of 10 years as directed as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra).
9. It was further submitted that considering the facts of the case and the Judgment and Award of the Labour Court for reinstatement and continuity of service having been achieved finality, the service of the respondent - workman could not have been ordered to be regularized from 2002 but it can be regularized from the date of reinstatement by the appellant - Nagarpalika with effect from 22.02.2013 only.
10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Krishnan M Ghavariya for the respondent submitted that though it is true that the respondent - workman has worked only for Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined 240 days in two and half years from 2000-2002, in view of the Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court of continuity of service having achieved finality, the appellant - Nagarpalika is rightly directed by the Labour Court as upheld by the learned Single Judge to regularize the service of the workman from the date of joining i.e. on 09.02.2000.
11. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2025 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1813 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No.756 of 2017 in the case of Port Officer Vs. Secretary & Anr.
12. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that it is not in dispute that the Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case No.42 of 2003 dated 13.08.2012 has achieved finality in view of the dismissal of the Special Civil Application No.15015 of 2012. Therefore, the appellant - Nagarpalika is bound to give effect to the Judgment and Award dated 13.08.2012 for reinstatement and continuity of service to the workman. However, it is also not in dispute that the respondent - workman has worked only for the year 2000 to 2002 and only because of the granting of continuity of service, it can be said that the respondent - workman ought to have completed 10 years of service with the appellant - Nagarpalika on giving the benefit of Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court which is affirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.15015 of 2012. Labour Court, therefore, could not have allowed the Reference (D) Case No.04 of 2015 by directing the appellant - Nagarpalika to regularize the service of the respondent - workman - Govindbhai Jivabhai Mevada from the date of his joining on 09.02.2000. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Another Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and others reported in Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024, after considering the decision in the case of Jaggo (Supra) as well as the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC page 1 held as under:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules as providing such absorption. However, frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily- wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant workman continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records - despite Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:
*22. The pervasive misuse temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue adversely affects workers' that rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and of undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness:
the Appellant workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal (s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal (s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. No orders as to costs."
13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.421 of 2025 and other allied matters in the case of Dwarka Municipality through its Chief Officer Vs. Mantri Shree, Jamnagar Jilla Majdoor Sangh & Another after considering the aforesaid decision in the case of Shripal and Others (Supra) has held as under:
"10. In the case before the Supreme Court, the workmen were terminated from service after being engaged for a considerably long period. The Supreme Court held that the appellant-workmen, who had rendered several years of service spanning more than a decade, cannot be summarily dismissed merely because they failed to furnish certain records, even if such failure occurred despite directions from the Labour Court.Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined
11. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra), it is held that the misuse of temporary labours i.e. the employees engaged for work, or contractual even when their roles mirror those of regular employees, such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and the benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. The Supreme Court has also highlighted that there is lack of career progression in case of temporary employees and they often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions or incremental pay rises. The Supreme Court has further deprecated the practice of outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. After setting aside the termination of such workmen, the Supreme Court has directed the employer initiate the fair and transparent process for regularizing the appellant workmen. It is further directed by the Supreme Court that in assessing regularization, the employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirement were never applied to the appellant - workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. In fact the Supreme Court has directed for sanctioning of the vacancies to ensure that the long time temporary employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable loss.
12. In both the cases of Shripal and other (supra) and Jaggo (Supra), the Supreme Court was directed the employers to regularize the workmen, who had been engaged for decades. The legal principle enunciated in these judgments squarely applies to the present case."
14. In view of the above dictum of law, the appellant -
Nagarpalika is bound to grant the benefit of regularization to the workman - Govindbhai Jivabhai Mevada in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Others (Supra) as well as Jaggo (Supra) whereby, the Hon'ble Court has directed the employers to regularize the workman who Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1288/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined have been engaged for decades. However, in the facts of the case, when the respondent - workman has not discharged the duties but has been reinstated pursuant to the Judgment and Award passed by the Court, the appellant - Nagarpalika cannot be saddled with the liability of regularization of the respondent - workman from the date of joining but the respondent - workman may be permitted to have the benefit of regularization from the date of the order passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case No.42 of 2003 with effect from 13.08.2012.
15. In view of the foregoing reasons and overall analysis of the facts and in view of the above dictum of law, Letters Patent Appel is partly allowed by modifying the Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court to give the benefit of regularization of the respondent - workman - Govindbhai Jivabhai Mevada with effect from 13.08.2012 instead of the date of joining from 09.02.2000. Rest of the order passed by the Labour Court is not disturbed.
16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) Jaimin Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 26 20:30:29 IST 2026