Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & … vs Shri Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra And … on 16 February, 2026

Uttarakhand High Court

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & … vs Shri Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra And … on 16 February, 2026

                                                     2026:UHC:979-DB




HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
                                AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
                       16th February, 2026

               Special Appeal No. 357 of 2023

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & another
                                    ------------Appellants
                         Versus

Shri Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra and others
                                    --------Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Lalit
Belwal, A.K.Roy, Mr. Ashish Belwal and Mr. Virendra Mohan
learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. T.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mohd.
Shafy, learned counsel for the respondents.




JUDGMENT:

(per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. Heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Senior Counsel,

assisted by Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. T.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel,

assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. The appeal is beyond time by 380 days. Although

the appeal is highly belated as there is no satisfactory

explanation for the delay, however, on persuasion of

1
2026:UHC:979-DB
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, we

also examined the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 30.08. 2022, which reads as follows:

“Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mohd. Shafy, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vinay
Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. I.P.
Kohli, Advocate for respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners are contract employees engaged to
discharge duty as Mali in Ranipur Unit of BHEL,
Haridwar. According to them, they are being paid
meagre amount as wages, whereas Malis appointed in
the permanent establishment of the same unit, are
being paid many times more amount as salary.
Petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.
1464 of 2018 claiming equal salary in terms of Rule
25 (2) (v) (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. A Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 22.02.2019 had referred
the matter to Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, to
decide as to whether the nature and type of work
performed by petitioners is the same, as that of the
workers, who are serving in the permanent
establishment of BHEL.

In terms of the order passed by Coordinate
Bench of this Court, Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) has passed an order on
28.10.2020, in which he has concluded that duties
performed by petitioners are the same, as that of a
Mali appointed in permanent establishment. The order
passed by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has
been affirmed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No.
368 of 2021 & Writ Petition (M/S) No. 369 of 2021.
In this writ petition, petitioners have sought the
following relief:-

“I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay the wages to the
petitioners on the same rates, which have
been prescribed by the respondents to the
“Mali” in the establishment of the
respondents or which are being paid to the
regular Mali in the establishment of the
respondents. The respondents may further
be directed to provide same facilities of
working hours, leave and all other service

2
2026:UHC:979-DB
benefits like gratuity etc which are being
provided to the regular Malis, in the
establishment of the respondents.”

Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for BHEL has raised preliminary objection that the
relief claimed by petitioners, cannot be granted in a
writ petition. He submits that for enforcement of their
right, if any, available under Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Rules
framed thereunder, petitioners can approach the
forum available under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
This Court finds substance in the contention raised by
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents.

Since petitioners have a statutory remedy under
Section 33C of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
therefore, this Court declines to entertain the writ
petition.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to petitioners to approach the said forum.

3. In the connected Special Appeal No. 358 of

2023, the same appellants have challenged the order

dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge

in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 368 of 2021 titled as ‘Bharat

others‘ and since it was filed as an afterthought, along

with the present appeal, it is delayed by 394 days.

Likewise, connected Special Appeal No. 353 of 2023 is

against the same judgment and order of the learned

Single Judge dated 16.08.2022 in Writ Petition (M/S)

No. 369 of 2021 and the said appeal is also delayed by

394 days.

4. Interestingly, the appellants have

simultaneously preferred one more Special Appeal

3
2026:UHC:979-DB
bearing No. 356 of 2023 assailing the order dated

22.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition (S/S) No. 1464 of 2018 titled as ‘Rajendra

Singh and others vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,

Ranipur, Haridwar & others’. The said Appeal is beyond

limitation by 953 days.

5. It is not disputed before us that in the earlier

rounds of litigation, the controversy between the writ

petitioners, who are contract labourers and the

appellants (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘BHEL’)

was referred for decision by the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner, in terms of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central

Rules, 1971 on basis of suggestions made by the

counsel for the BHEL to examine as to whether the

nature of work of the writ petitioners was the same as

their counterparts, who were directly engaged by BHEL

and working in its permanent establishment. Pursuant

thereto, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central), Dehradun decided the issue by order dated

28.10.2020 and concluded that the works done by the

writ petitioners are same as that by their counterparts

working in the permanent establishment. The order

passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner was

4
2026:UHC:979-DB
subjected to challenge by the BHEL in WPMS No. 368 of

2021 and WPMS No.369 of 2021 but the challenge was

rejected by this Court by order dated 16.08.2022. At

that stage, the appellants did not challenge the order of

this Court dated 16.08.2022. The writ petitioners,

thereafter, preferred the Writ Petition seeking a writ of

mandamus commanding the appellants to pay

additional wages in terms of the decision of the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) dated

28.10.2020. In the said writ petition, a preliminary

objection was raised by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the BHEL to the maintainability of the writ

petition. It was contended that the writ petitioners had

alternative remedy to seek enforcement of their rights

under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Act, 1970 by approaching the appropriate authority

under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned

Single Judge, only on basis of the objection of BHEL

regarding availability of alternative remedy, declined to

entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioners

to the remedy under Section 33C of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

6. The present appeal has been filed contending

that the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation

5
2026:UHC:979-DB
and Abolition) Act, 1970 would not apply against the

principal employer, namely, the BHEL and therefore, the

order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous.

7. We are not inclined to examine the said

aspect, as the petitioners were relegated to the

alternative remedy only on the objection of the

appellants (BHEL).

8. In case, there is any inherent lack of

jurisdiction with the authority, before whom

proceedings may have been filed in pursuance of the

liberty granted to the petitioners by the learned Single

Judge, it is always open to the appellants (BHEL) to

raise the issue before the said authority.

9. It is noteworthy that the appellants have

already challenged the proceedings pending before the

Labour Court under Section 33C of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 by filing Writ Petition No. 2234 of

2024 and it is stated to be pending.

10. Having regard to the above facts, we decline

to entertain the instant appeal. It is accordingly

dismissed, without affecting the right of the appellants

6
2026:UHC:979-DB
to raise any jurisdictional plea as they may be available

to the appellants before the appropriate forum.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 16.02.2026
Kaushal

7