Bombay High Court Backs Transparent Tenders for Shoe-Shine Licenses, Shielding Workers Through Minimum-Wage Mandate

In a significant ruling balancing equity and competition, the Bombay High Court has upheld the Central Railway 's 2018 Shoe-Shine License Policy, rejecting claims that it threatened the livelihood of long-serving cooperative society members. The Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the writ petition filed by the Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op. Society Ltd. , while issuing crucial directions to protect vulnerable workers.

Decades of Service at Mumbai Stations Spark Legal Battle

The petitioner society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, has provided shoe-shine services at key Central Railway stations including Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Masjid Bunder, and Sandhurst Road since the mid-1980s. Its 35 members, many from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, depend entirely on this trade for survival.

The dispute arose when the Railways introduced the 2018 Shoe-Shine Licence Policy authorizing open tenders among registered societies of shoe-shine workers. This replaced earlier policies that had favored cooperative societies with SC/ST preferences and permitted renewals based on performance. The society argued the new framework exposed its experienced members to unfair competition and risked rendering them jobless overnight.

Petitioners Seek Monopoly; Railways Champion Fair Play

Counsel for the society, Ms. Jane Cox, contended that the 2018 Policy stripped away safeguards from the 1999 and 2000 frameworks, such as preference for societies composed substantially of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members and explicit minimum-wage obligations. She emphasized that members, accustomed only to boot polishing after decades in the trade, possessed no alternative livelihoods and deservedAutomatic renewal or special consideration.

Representing the Railways, Mr. T.J. Pandian countered that perpetual renewal would create monopolies and deny opportunities to other similarly placed societies. Multiple cooperative bodies had already approached the administration seeking participation. The policy, he argued, promoted transparency through single-packet open tenders while still targeting the weakest sections of society. Past experience could be factored during evaluation, but excluding newer entrants violated principles of equal opportunity.

Court Emphasizes Experience Without Creating Privileges

The High Court carefully traced the evolution of railway policies from 1999 through successive amendments in 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2015. It noted that open tenders had become the norm to ensure fairness. The Bench observed that the 2018 Policy correctly restricted participation to societies of actual shoe-shine workers and prescribed safeguards like age limits, medical fitness, and police verification.

Recognizing the petitioners' long service, the Court directed the Railways to give weightage to experience at stations where the society had historically operated. However, it firmly rejected any claim to exclusive rights:

> "We, therefore, direct the Railways to give some weightage to those Co-operative Societies of Shoe-shine boys who have experience of working in the past, but definitely that do not mean that others/fresh bidders are never allowed to compete with the Petitioner Society as it would amount to creation of a monopoly."

On minimum wages, the Court was critical of their omission from the 2018 Policy:

> "We have also noted that the impugned Policy has done away with the requirement of providing minimum wages to the workers/employees engaged by the Contractor and we do not approve of the same."

It therefore mandated inclusion of minimum-wage compliance as a tender condition.

Key Observations from the Judgment

The Court highlighted several pivotal points:

> "The Shoe-Shine Policy and the Shoe-Shine Tenders under that policy are not intended for corporates. In fact, there is no such thing. They are meant for societies of precisely persons such as the members of the Petitioner."

> "It is obviously necessary in the interests of transparency and fairness and providing a fair opportunity to all Shoe-Shine persons to allow them to participate."

> "The tender process which ensure transparency, openness and fairness, also has the effect of curbing nepotism and corruption and we welcome the step taken by the Railways for adopting a more transparent procedure."

> "It is open for the Petitioner Society to participate in the tender process and compete with others in the fray, though we find that considering their experience and performance in the past, they may gain an edge over others."

Final Outcome and Broader Implications

The writ petition stands dismissed. The society may participate in upcoming tenders, where its track record will be duly considered. Should it fail to bid or win, the Railways remain free to proceed with fresh allotments under the 2018 framework. Most importantly, all future contracts must incorporate binding minimum-wage stipulations, offering tangible protection to workers across Mumbai Division stations.

This balanced verdict reinforces administrative transparency in public contracts while recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of India's lowest-strata workers—an approach likely to influence similar disputes involving traditional service providers on public premises.