Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Ashwinkumar Ramanlal Sharma & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Din Dayal Jamin And Mojni Sanstha - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 1186 of 2026
Decided On : 21-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Dipak R Dave
For the Respondent: Ms Sweety Samara, AGP

The classification of an employee as part-time does not justify the denial of regularization and terminal benefits when the employee has performed full-time duties for decades; the substance of employment prevails over initial contractual nomenclature and procedural technicalities regarding the timing of the claim.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Law - Regularization of services - Entitlement to financial and service benefits - Employees engaged as part-time but performing continuous full-time duties for decades are entitled to regularization and parity in pay scales based on established government policy guidelines. (Paras 11, 13)

(B) Employment Status - Substantive rights - The nature of employment is determined by actual duties performed and the length of service rather than initial contractual labels - Procedural technicalities regarding the timing of a claim, even if considered premature at inception, become irrelevant when employees render decades of continuous service during the long pendency of legal proceedings. (Paras 6, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were engaged as part-time workers performing daily duties exceeding eight hours for over twenty-five years. Their initial claim for regularization and financial benefits was rejected by the adjudicating tribunal on the grounds that the dispute was premature at the time of filing, as the employees had not completed five years of service at the inception of the reference.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the adjudicating tribunal failed to consider that the actual length of service exceeded two decades by the time of the award, rendering the initial point of premature filing moot. Evidence confirmed that the workers performed the same duties as regular staff, and their long tenure created substantive rights that could not be overruled by initial procedural objections.

Issues: Whether the designation as part-time and initial procedural objections regarding the timing of a claim can be used to permanently deny substantive employment benefits to individuals who have served continuously in a full-time capacity for several decades.

Ratio Decidendi: Employment benefits cannot be denied solely based on initial contractual labels or minor procedural non-compliance during the initial filing period when the actual functions performed are identical to full-time service. Substantive rights accruing over years of continuous and uninterrupted employment must prevail over technical objections, particularly when the litigation has been pending for an extended duration.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for challenging the labour court's rejection of regularization prayer. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. competing contentions regarding continuous long-term service and premature reference claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. evidence of substantial service duration outweighs premature filing technicalities. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. substantive rights in continuous service supersede temporary contract labels for regularization. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. mandatory directive to implement regularization and payment of arrears. (Para 14)

ORDER :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Sweety Samara waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent – Institution.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are praying for the following reliefs :-

“(A) (i) quashed and set aside the impugned award dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCAD) No.77 of 2002 at Annexure-A to the petition and may be pleased to allow the Reference of the petitioners in full ;

(ii) hold and declare that action of the respondent in not extending the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners as illegal unjust, improper and further may be pleased to direct respondent to extend benefit of Resolution Government dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners upon completion of their five years of service and be pleased to pay all consequential arrears, difference of salary by placing them in fixed pay after completion of five years service and in pay scale after completion of 10 years of service as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 : (Ann.F]

(iii) direct the respondent to pay retirement and pensionary benefits to the petitioner Nos.5 and 6 i.e. the date on which petitioner No.5 has retired and the date on which petitioner No.6 has expired ;

(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to immediately fix the salary of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in regular pay-scale and to direct the respondent to give retirement benefits to the petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 ;

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted.”

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to be appointed as part time employees for six hours in the month of March, 1996 in the respondent- Institution and they are continuing in service since then. It is further the case of the petitioners that they have been engaged in semi skilled worker category as hostel attendants and are working for more than 8 hours per day, which includes various activities and maintenance of the hostel buildings and other misc. work. Petitioner No. 5 – Ashwinbhai Kalidas Parmar has superannuated on 30.09.2025 and petitioner No.6- Nandlal Ratilal Soni has expired on 02.12.2021 while in service. All these petitioners had raised a dispute through the Gujarat Rajya Ardhsahakari & Audhyogik Karmachari Sangh before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who by communication dated 30.04.2002, has made a reference to the learned Labour Court, which came to be registered as Reference (LCAD) No. 77 of 2002. The said reference proceedings came to be adjudicated by the impugned award dated 01.07.2024, whereby the said reference came to be rejected by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the present case, the petitioners are working continuously from March, 1996, as hostel attendants and were rendering service of peon round-the-clock. He submits that in fact though the petitioners have been termed as part timers, they are doing the work round-the-clock. In any case, the petitioners were on duty as Rojamdar for more than 8 hours for a day. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that since

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.Ashwinkumar Ramanlal Sharma & Ors. - AppellantVersusDin Dayal Jamin And Mojni Sanstha - RespondentSpecial Civil Application No. 1186 of 2026Decided On : 21-04-2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Ashwinkumar Ramanlal Sharma & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Din Dayal Jamin And Mojni Sanstha - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 1186 of 2026
Decided On : 21-04-2026