Gujarat High Court
Kalptaru Projects International ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10436 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10438 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
KALPTARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.10436 of 2025
LD.SR.ADV.MR.MIHIR JOSHI WITH MR. KEYUR GANDHI WITH
MR.NISARG DESAI WITH MS.PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI FOR GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AMRESH PATEL, for the Respondent(s) No.2
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.10438 of 2025
LD.SR.ADV.MR.MIHIR JOSHI WITH MR. KEYUR GANDHI WITH
MR.NISARG DESAI WITH MS.PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI FOR GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL PARMAR ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AMRESH PATEL, for the Respondent(s) No.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned AGPs Mr.Davda, Mr.Parmar and learned advocate Mr.Patel waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
2. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.10436 of 2025 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
3. The present petitions are filed challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Labour, Gandhinagar in Conciliation Case Nos.97 of 2023 and 103 of 2023.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company has a plant at Gandhinagar, and the present dispute pertains to the employees serving at Sector 28, Gandhinagar. The petitioner has a few employees on its roll in the workmen category, while other employees are working in the staff category. The petitioner has engaged more than 1000 contractual labourers in the plant at Sector 28, Gandhinagar through various contractors, including the contractors who are parties before this Court.
4.1. The State Government has granted licences to the said contractors under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, for carrying out various contractual works, and certificates to that effect have also been Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined issued to the contractors. For the purposes of wages, allowances, and other benefits of the said contractual labourers, the contractors have entered into long-term settlements with the contractual labourers from time to time. The details of such settlements are provided hereinbelow:
"Settlement dated 11.05.2017 with the contractors during conciliation under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 through one Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh ("AGMS") Union for the period between 2016 and 2019.
Settlement dated 28.02.2020 with contractors through AGMS Union in Reference (IT) No. 9 of 2020 for the period between 01.04.2019 and 31.03.2023 Settlement dated 29.05.2020 with contractors through Gujarat Shramik Seva Sangh Union under Section 12(3) and 2(p) of the Act for the period between 01.04.2019 and 31.03.2023.
Settlement dated 12.03.2024 with contractors through AGMS Union u/s 2(P) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for the period between 01.04.2023 and 31.03.2027."
5. It is the case of the present petitioner that the Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined concerned employees are working under the contractors and not under the petitioner company. Respondent No.2 had earlier raised demands on behalf of the contract workers, which came to be admitted in conciliation proceedings and numbered as IDC Case No.158 of 2021. Vide order dated 18.06.2022, the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner disposed of all such demands in view of the settlement arrived at between the contract workers, AGMS Union, and Gujarat Shramik Seva Sangh ('the GSSS' referred hereinafter) .
5.1. Subsequently, GMS raised further demands by issuing a charter of demands dated 19.05.2023, alleging that the contract between the contractors and the petitioner company is a sham and paper arrangement, and also seeking increase in basic wages and various allowances such as fixed dearness allowance, variable dearness allowance, conveyance allowance, washing allowance, shift allowance, etc. 5.2. The petitioner company submitted its reply on 29.01.2024 before the Conciliation Officer contending that there is no employer-employee relationship between the workers raising the demands and the petitioner company, as they are the employees of the respective contractors.
Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Conciliation meetings were thereafter conducted before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner on 29.01.2024, 15.02.2024, and 10.03.2024. The demands were then referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal as Reference (IT) No.20 of 2024. However, in view of the settlement arrived at between AGMS Union and the contractor (respondent herein), the said References came to be withdrawn by the Union.
5.3. Prior thereto, on 24.05.2024, the learned Commissioner had referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Kalol), encompassing all demands raised by the Union without due application of mind, and the same was numbered as Reference (IT) No.49 of 2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.14291 of 2024 challenging the order dated 24.05.2024, as well as Special Civil Application No.12023 of 2024 challenging the order dated 18.05.2024 passed in Conciliation Case No.103 of 2023.
5.4. This Court, vide judgment dated 26.03.2025, set aside the order of reference passed in the said conciliation case and directed the authority to re- frame the terms of reference within 45 days from the date of receipt of the judgment. Pursuant Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined thereto, the learned Commissioner has again re- framed the terms of reference, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
6. Heard the learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi with Mr.Keyur Gandhi, Mr.Nisarg Desai, Ms.Pravalikha Batthini for Gandhi Law Associates for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. advocate Mr.Amresh Patel for the respondent, learned AGPs Mr.Aditya Dava and Mr.Dhaval Parmar for respondent-State.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi submits that the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the observations of this Court made in the judgment dated 26.03.2025, wherein it was held that unless and until adjudication on the declaration of the contracts as sham and bogus is undertaken, no further reliefs claimed by the respondents can be examined. However, despite the aforesaid findings, the learned Commissioner has presupposed that the contract is sham and not genuine, and that the contractor's employees are entitled to the wage structure and benefits payable to the employees of the petitioner company. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the contractors themselves were not even parties to the Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined conciliation proceedings, despite the demands having been raised on behalf of all contract workers. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the observations made by this Court in its judgment dated 26.03.2025.
7.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi submits that by re-framing the terms of reference, the Appropriate Government has presupposed that the workers of the contractors are in fact the employees of the petitioner company. He points out that the Labour Commissioner, in the impugned order of reference, has asserted that the contract system is concocted and made up, thereby presupposing that the contract system in the petitioner company is fictitious.
7.2. It is also submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi that none of the workers directly employed by the petitioner company have raised any demands through respondent No.2- Union, and therefore no reference could have been made in respect of the permanent employees of the petitioner company. The demands were raised exclusively on behalf of contract workers, while none of the contractors were impleaded as parties to the conciliation proceedings, which clearly demonstrates that respondent No.1 authority has Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined presupposed that all such contract workers are the employees of the petitioner company.
7.3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi submits that the alleged demands of the workers were referred without arriving at any subjective satisfaction as to whether there exists any dispute between the workers of the contractors vis-a-vis the petitioner company. He submits that an administrative authority under the statute, while forming an opinion to refer a dispute for adjudication, is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction about the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute. Accordingly, the Appropriate Government was required to arrive at such satisfaction and form an opinion on the existence of an industrial dispute, which is absent in the present case.
7.4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi further submits that in the absence of an employer- employee relationship between the workers on whose behalf the alleged dispute is raised through the respondent-Union and the petitioner company, admittedly, all such workers being employees of the contractors, there is no existence of an "industrial dispute" as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, qua the petitioner company. Such existence of an industrial dispute Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined is sine qua non for referring the matter for adjudication to the learned Tribunal.
7.5. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi that unless and until an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended between the parties, the Appropriate Government is not empowered to make a reference under Section 10 of the Act. He emphasizes that none of the workers forming the subject matter of the alleged dispute have ever been appointed by the petitioner company at any point of time, nor has the petitioner company supervised, controlled, or allotted work to them, as they are admittedly employed by the contractors.
7.6. It is also submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi that long-term settlements were entered into between AGMS and GSSS Unions, representing these contract workers, which governed their terms and conditions of employment. Despite the existence of such settlements, the learned authority has committed an error in referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not reflect the real nature of dispute between the correct parties and, for this reason also, deserves Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined to be interfered with by allowing the present petitions.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Amresh Patel, appearing for the respondent-Union, has submitted that, as directed by this Court vide its judgment dated 26.03.2025, the learned authority has re-framed the terms of reference. However, with the intention of not allowing the Reference to proceed, the orders of reference are time and again being challenged before this Court.
8.1. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that with regard to the existence of the industrial dispute, this Court has already arrived at the conclusion in its judgment dated 26.03.2025 that such a dispute exists between the parties, and that judgment has attained finality. Therefore, no further adjudication by this Court is required on the issue of the existence of the dispute.
8.2. In view of the above, learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that if the References are given a new number, he would not raise any objection. However, as no error has been committed by the learned authority in referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, the present petitions are required to be dismissed.
Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
9. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon examining the impugned terms of reference, it emerges that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court, vide judgment dated 26.03.2025, had issued the following directions.
"21. In the above background, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner of Labour, Gandhinagar in conciliation case No.103 of 2023 and conciliation case No.97 of 2023 dated 18.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 respectively referring the terms to the Industrial Tribunal are hereby set aside. The appropriate Government shall re-frame the terms in view of the observations made herein. That exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
10. Arguments with regard to the existence of the settlement this Court in earlier round of litigation has held as under:
"9.Having given thoughtful consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and, material placed, it emerges that, in the few plants at Gandhinagar, including plant situated in sector 28, the contractual labourers has raised the Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner company has employed more than 1000 contractual employees as stated in petition through the various contractors, including the respondent contractor. Previously also dispute with regard to the wages, allowances and other benefits of the contractual labourers were raised wherein following long term settlement were arrived with the contract labourer from time to time through the respective union:
(a) settlement dated 11.05.2017 with contractors during the conciliation under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act through one AGMS was arrived in Industrial Dispute Case No.92 of 2016 under Section 12(3) for the period between 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019;
(b) settlement dated 28.02.2020 with the contractors through AGMS in Reference No.9 of 2020 for the period between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2023 wherein as per the clause (36) it was admitted by both the parties i.e. representative of Union and first party i.e. the contractors that all the contract labourers are the employees of the contractors No.2 to 19 and they were never appointed by first party, namely, Kalpatru Power Transmission Limited i.e. the present petitioner neither worked as a direct employee of the petitioner company. It is also clarified in the said clause that the petitioner company was unnecessarily joined and no relief or demand is raised against the present petitioner-company.
(c) Similar was the settlement arrived in IDC Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Case No.399 of 2019 on 29.05.2020 under Section 12(3) and 2(P) of the I.D.Act for the period between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2023 with contractors through GSSS wherein also it was agreed in the clause (36) that all the employees are the contractual employees of contractor Nos.2 to 15 and never appointed by the petitioner company and the petitioner company was wrongly joined in the said Reference. Representative of the Union has signed supplement (A) which is annexed with the petition at page 100.
(d) the next settlement was arrived between the contractors and the Union, namely, AGMS on 12.03.2024 for the period of 01.03.2023 to 31.03.2027 wherein also the clause mentioned in the previous settlement is referred as clause No.37. The petitioner has also signed in the said settlement as a confirming party and name of the signatories, who are representatives of the Union is figured at page 119 of supplement (A).
9.1 Thereafter, the workmen figured in the list annexed with charter of demand join in August 2021 with present union and has raised the dispute which was registered as IDC Case No.157 of 2021 claiming equal treatment at par with the regular employee and to pay regular wages with arrears at the rate of 12%. The Conciliation Officer vide its order dated 18.06.2022 has dismissed the demand on the ground that earlier the settlement is arrived between the contractors and Union namely AGMS and GSSS is in operation upto 31.03.2023 and none of the Union has issued the notice under Section 19(2) of the I.D.Act therefore, no conciliation proceedings can be initiated with new Union.
9.2 It is further observed that as the said settlement is recorded under Section 12(3) and Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Section 2(P) of the I.D.Act, the same is binding to all Unions including the present Union. 9.3 On refusing the Reference, the present respondent i.e. GMS has raised demand by issuing notice on 15.03.2023 pertaining the contract being sham and paper arrangement as well as increase in basic wages and various allowances such as fixed dearness allowance, variable dearness allowance, convenience allowance, washing allowance, shift allowance, attendance allowance, education allowance, etc. of the contract workers. It is observed in the said notice that the previous settlement is terminated under Section 19(6) of the I.D.Act and therefore, by issuing two months' notice, claim was made w.e.f. 01.04.2024. The examination of the membership as on 08.09.2023 suggests that there are 743 members in the respondent-Union. The aforesaid demands were taken into conciliation proceedings, which was registered as conciliation case No.103 of 2023 before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner.
9.4 The petitioner-company has submitted its reply on 05.02.2024 categorically denial the employer-employee relationship and submitted that the workers who raised the demands are employees of contractors and contractors are issued valid license for contractual work for the purpose of employing these contract workers. It is submitted that contractors having independent identity, having separate PF and ESI registration, GST registration and depositing the contribution to the PF and ESI authority. The meetings before the conciliation in the impugned demand were held on 29.01.2024, 15.02.2024 and 12.03.2024.
9.5 It further emerges from the record that the Union, namely AGMS has also raised demand for revision in basic wages and allowance of the contract workers affiliated with the union was referred for conciliation being a conciliation case number 83 of 2023 and after submitting failure Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined report by conciliation officer, the demands were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Kalol/Mahesana which was registered as Reference (IT) No.20 of 2024.Thereafter, the settlement arrived between the AGMS Union and respondent Nos.3 to 9, the said Reference was permitted to be withdrawn by the learned labour Court on 01.04.2024.
9.6 List of 763 employees, who are stated to be the Member Of The Union, which is annexed at page 176 appears to be a contractual employees. However, the demand Nos.1 & 2 , which is raised, pertaining to contractual employees and demand Nos.3 to 28 raised for all employees irrespective of their status. The petitioner has informed to the Union vide communication dated 10.04.2023 that for the regular employees, who are not Members of the Union, the respondent-Union does not have any locus to raise the demand. On 12.03.2024 the failure report is submitted by the learned Conciliation Officer to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad and appendix 'U' annexed with the failure report at page 275 suggests that the dispute is raised by 743 Members of the Union, who are contractual employee.
9.7 Learned Labour Commissioner by an order dated 18.05.2024 referred the said dispute to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Kalol) containing all demands raised by Union, which was registered as Reference (IT) No.46 of 2024 and the same is impugned before this Court. The demand which are refer for adjudication is reproduced hereinbelow:
"(1) Whether, on an equitable basis, the original salary and all other allowances and benefits provided to the permanent workers in the company are to be paid, including arrears, to all the workers engaged in the operations for which Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined the artificial contract on paper has been created by the company with effect from date 01.04.2023?
(2) All the workers working in the company for whom the artificial, fake, and misleading contract system has been created on paper is illegal and void from the beginning and considering all the workers as direct and permanent workers of the company, considering the rank, performance, and skills of these workers, should the company pay all the salaries, allowances, benefits, and facilities paid to the permanent workers with 12% interest on the amount of arrears?
(3) Basic Salary:- The employees currently working in various levels in the company should be increased by Rs.7500/- every year in the current basic salary from 1-4-23 and the following increments should be given every year according to the year of employment and whether that amount should be included in the basic salary, PF, gratuity and other benefits?
(4) Dearness Allowance, (5) House Rent, (6) Conveyancing Allowance, (7) Provision of Health Facilities, (8) Washing Allowance, (9) Shift Allowance, (10) Attendants Allowance, (11) Education Allowance, (12) Leave Travel Allowance, (13) Holidays, (14) Bonus, (15) Provision of Interim Relief, (16) Facilities, (17) Travel, (18) Long Service Award, (19) Payment of Compensation for On-Duty Injury, (20) Promotion, (21) Uniform, (22) Loans and Various Facilities, (23) Provision of Various Service Records to Workers Working in the Company, (24) Medical Checkup, (25) Retirement Age Limit, (26) Recognition of Union, (27) Permanentisation, (28) Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined The issue of considering the jobs of workers as consecutive.
9.8 The demands of Reference (IT) No.83 of 2023, which are refer in Special Civil Application No.14291 of 2024 are reproduced hereinbelow:
(1) The workers working in this organization are working as the workers of the company from the date of their first admission in the company. But the company has created bogus and artificial contract system on paper and the company has not given these workers pay scale equivalent to the permanent employees as well as other allowances, PF, CL, SL, PL, Bonus and other benefits as per seniority. The company has changed the names of the contractor parties from the date of their first admission in the company as per the requirement of the company and to create the persons decided by the company as bogus contractors on paper. But the workers are working in the company as workers from their first date of admission. Therefore, as per the conditions of the service applicable to the permanent employees working in the company, as to whether equivalent pay scale, allowances, promotion, CL, SL, PL, Bonus etc benefits may be paid to all these workers and whether their service be considered as continuous employment for all the other purposes of the service and they be paid all the benefits arising out of various Labour Laws in future with 12 % interest or not?
10. The ground on which the Order of Reference is challenged is that the dispute Nos.3 to 28 pertain to rise in the basic wages, allowance, etc. of the petitioner-company's worker and the respondent No.2-Union is not representing the petitioner- company's worker therefore, there is no locus with Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined the Union to raise the dispute which is pertaining to the regular employees.
10.1 This Court refers the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Manager, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi Vs. Chief Commissioner, Delhi And Others, reported in AIR (1959)SC 1214 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that order of reference is not bad because it does not specify how many of the 480 workers of thirty different categories working in the hotel were involved in the dispute. It is held that it is unnecessary for the purpose of section 10 of the Act where the dispute was of a general nature relating to the terms of employment or condition of labour of a body of workmen, to mention the names of particular workmen who might have been responsible for the dispute. It was only where a dispute refers to the dismissal etc., of particular workmen as represented by the Union that it would be desirable to mention the names of the workmen concerned.
10.2 The another ground on which the terms of reference claimed to be defective is the settlement dated 27.04.2023 with the petitioner and the permanent workmen of the petitioner and is valid upto 31.12.2026 which is entered under Sections 2(P) and 18(1) of the I.D.Act and which was never sought to have been terminated by the petitioner Union.
***
13. It is indisputably in the instant case that the dispute exists between the company and the employee and the dispute is same, which was an industrial dispute as defined under the I.D.Act therefore, its factual existence and expediency of making reference in the Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined circumstances of the particular case are matters entirely for the government to decide and the appropriate government is having the power under Section 10 to add or amplify the matter already referred there under for adjudication.
11. In the earlier petitions, the main contention raised by the petitioner was that the dispute proceeded on the premise that the contracts were sham and bogus, and without any adjudication to that effect, the terms of reference were framed.
12. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court came to the conclusion that there was already a predetermination of the issue with regard to the contract system being sham and a paper arrangement. Therefore, the Court directed the learned Tribunal to re-frame the terms of reference by wording them appropriately so that no scope of ambiguity or controversy remains. Pursuant thereto, the Labour Commissioner has framed the terms, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
Terms framed in Conciliation Case No.97 of 2023 "Whether the system of contract labor instituted by the company is an artificial and/or fake? Whether Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined the contractors, named as such, are merely "paper contractors" and their parties have been changed simply to establish a system for workers required by the company, from the date of the contractual workers' initial engagement? Whether the contractual workers employed at the establishment have been working as employees of the company from the date of their first engagement? If these workers have not been paid the same pay scale, allowances, and PF, CL, SL, PL, bonus and other benefits equivalent to the permanent workers as per seniority, should all these workers be entitled to the same pay scale, allowances, promotion, and all other benefits as per the service conditions applicable to permanent workers in the company? By considering their service continue in all respects, whether they should be paid all benefits arising from various labor laws with 12% interest in future?"
Terms framed in Conciliation Case No.103 of 2023 "(1) Whether the contract system implemented by the company is an artificial or fraudulent "on paper"
arrangement? If the contract system implemented by the company is an artificial or fraudulent "on paper"
arrangement, whether all workers engaged in that work should be paid all arrears, including basic pay and all Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined other allowances, benefits, and facilities, on the same basis as permanent employees, effective from 01/04/2023?
(2) If the contract system is found to be an artificial, fraudulent, or misleading arrangement, whether it should be declared illegal and void from the very beginning? Whether all the workers should be considered direct and permanent employees of the company? Taking into account the class, work, and skill level of these workers, whether they should be paid the same salary, allowances, benefits, and facilities as permanent employees and whether they should be paid 12% interest on the arrears amount of all those benefits?
(3) Basic Pay: Whether the present basic pay of employees, currently working in various categories within the company, should be increased by ₹7,500/-
each year, effective from 01/04/2023? And, whether they should be given an increment each year based on their years of service as detailed below? Furthermore, whether this amount should be included in the basic pay for the purposes of PF, Gratuity, and other benefits?
Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined (4) Dearness Allowance, (5) House Rent, (6) Conveyancing Allowance, (7) Provision of Health Facilities, (8) Washing Allowance, (9) Shift Allowance, (10) Attendants Allowance, (11) Education Allowance, (12) Leave Travel Allowance, (13) Holidays, (14) Bonus, (15) Provision of Interim Relief, (16) Facilities, (17) Travel, (18) Long Service Award, (19) Payment of Compensation for On-Duty Injury, (20) Promotion, (21) Uniform, (22) Loans and Various Facilities, (23) Provision of Various Service Records to Workers Working in the Company, (24) Medical Checkup, (25) Retirement Age Limit, (26) Recognition of Union, (27) Permanentisation, (28) The issue of considering the jobs of workers as consecutive.
13. As this Court has already dealt with all the contentions raised herein in the earlier round of litigation and directed the learned authority to re- frame the terms, and as the said judgment has attained finality, reconsidering the same contention would amount to nothing but wastage of judicial time. After referring to the decisions rendered by the Apex Court, this Court has held that, for appropriate adjudication, the first issue with regard to whether the contract system in existence is sham, bogus or a paper arrangement is required to be decided, and Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined thereafter the remaining demands are to be adjudicated by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the terms have been re-framed.
14. It is contended by the learned advocate that, for the same demand, two disputes were raised, which according to him does not support the referring of the demands and the framing of terms. However, it emerges that two separate disputes were raised, as in one Reference the contractors were joined as parties, i.e. Conciliation Case No.103 of 2023, and after change of the contractor, the date of joining of the workmen also changed. Consequently, other statutory benefits would also accrue from the said date, even if the dispute is ultimately decided in favour of the workmen. Therefore, separate disputes came to be raised before the Appropriate Government. Nevertheless, it shall be open for the learned Tribunal to consolidate both the References and decide them together, if it deems fit. However, this by itself cannot be a ground for challenging the terms of Reference.
15. This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen, (1959) 29 COMP CAS 367, reported in AIR (1960) SC 12, wherein it has been held that the items in a notification referring an Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined industrial dispute for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal are not items in a legislative list, but are items in an administrative order. It has further been held that the same canon of interpretation which applies to items in a legislative list cannot mechanically be applied to items in an administrative order. The Court must attempt to construe the terms of reference not in a pedantic or mechanical manner, but fairly and reasonably. The learned Tribunal, in any case, would have the powers as well as the duty to ascertain the real dispute referred to it and to adjudicate upon the same. Therefore, at this stage, any interference with the terms of reference would amount to miscarriage of the judicial process.
16. It is required to be noted that when this Court has already directed the concerned authority to re- frame the terms, and in light of such directions the terms have been re-framed, challenging the same before this Court on identical grounds would be nothing but an attempt to prolong the industrial adjudication. Therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed. At the same time, the learned Tribunal is directed to assign fresh numbers to the industrial disputes so that proper adjudication can be undertaken.
Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10436/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
17. Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
18. At the time of pronouncement of judgment request was made by the learned Ms. Ms.Pravalikha Batthini to stay the impugned order, however, this petitions being a second round of litigation, this Court declines to grant the relief of stay of the present order.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:26:26 IST 2025