IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1312 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/8280/2022 ==========================================================

KANTIBHAI MOHANBHAI SOLANKI & ANR.

Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/ASSET MANAGER, ONGC LIMITED, AHMEDABAD ASSET & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 06/01/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may note that this intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the claim made by the petitioners in the writ petition cannot be adjudicated within the scope of the writ jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the benefits claimed by the petitioners as has been granted to the similarly situated employees are disputed by the employer.

2. The only reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for rejection of the claim of the petitioners is that the respondent – employer had denied the claim for grant of similar benefits to identically situated employees on the premise that the petitioners did not work for the period from 2001 – 2014 and hence, they would not be entitled to the same.

3. It is further recorded that vide communication dated 18.11.2014 sent by the petitioners, the petitioners had waived their right to claim benefits for the Year 1998-2014. After saying so, the learned Single Judge records that the issue raised before the writ-court is required to be adjudicated by the labour court in the reference proceedings as adjudication of the dispute would require leading of evidence and judicial scrutiny on appreciation thereof. The relief to the petitioners has also been refused noticing that the contempt proceedings filed for the same relief were not entertained while granting liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate representation.

4. Challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge, the attention of the Court is invited to the reliefs sought in the writ petition which are as under:-

“21(A) Be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directing to the respondent to give the equal treatment to the petitioners as given to the other similarly situated employees as per the direction of the Hon’ble court in respect of Pay-scale given to the similarly situated employees and further to direct the respondent to give the pay-scale of Rs.14250/- as given to the other similarly situated employees instead of pay-scale Rs.10000/- from November-2014 and further to pay all the differential amounts from November-2014 till today and further to direct to put the petitioners in the similar pay-scale which is granted to the other similarly situated employees from time to time and to pay the differential amount with all the benefits from November-2014 till the date of payment.

(C) Be pleased to direct the respondent ONGC to grant the pay-scale of Rs.14250/- as granted in case of other similarly situated employees instead of pay-scale of Rs.10000/- from November, 2014 and pay all the differential amount to the petitioners as given to the other similarly situated employees in respect of pay-scale which increase from time to time and to the petitioners in the similar pay-scale at present.

(D) Any other and further relief be granted in the interest of justice.”

5. The categorical stand of the petitioners before the writ Court was that the petitioner no.1 and 2 [two in numbers] have been working with ONGC [employer] since the year 1986 and 19