Bombay High Court Upholds Railways Shoe Shine Policy For Passenger Services; No Monopoly In Contracts & Minimum Wages Must Be Ensured

Pertinently, the Court also noted that the 2018 policy did not explicitly ensure payment of minimum wages to workers. Terming this omission unacceptable, it directed the Railways to incorporate a condition in the tender and contract requiring compliance with minimum wage laws, thereby safeguarding the rights of workers engaged under such arrangements.

Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande rejecting the challenge on two counts, held that neither the removal of caste-based preference nor the denial of automatic renewal to long-standing societies renders the policy arbitrary. “On both counts since we do not find any arbitrariness on part of the Railway in shunting the claim of the Petitioners and in fact it is quite possible that considering their experience, and exposure to the trade, the Petitioner Society may emerge the successful bidder to the exclusion of others, but according to us, every such co-operative society of Shoe-shine boys, must get an equal opportunity to compete with the Petitioners, as the Petitioner cannot claim monopoly of the Petitioners to gain the Contract at the stations, on which they are presently working”, it noted.

“…we must also keep in mind that it is not only they who are entitled to get the Contract as there are other younger people who are eager to earn a livelihood from the said avocation, as they may also belong to the weaker strata of society and definitely in such a scenario there has to be a competition, where opportunity is made available to each of the participant and therefore we do not find any flaw in the Policy formulated by Respondent No.1 on 27/02/2018 on both counts; firstly that there is no special preference given to a Society comprising of largely or wholly members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or that because the Petitioners are the members of the Society and are working for a considerable length of time, and therefore no other entity/ individual is allowed to take their job”, it further noted.

Advocate Jane Cox appeared for the petitioner and Advocate T.J. Pandian appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner society, engaged in providing shoe-polishing services at Mumbai railway stations for decades, contended that the new policy diluted the earlier welfare-oriented framework, removed preference for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and introduced an open tender system that would jeopardise the livelihood of its members. It argued that having rendered services for over three decades, its license ought to be renewed rather than subjected to competitive bidding.

The Court, however, found no arbitrariness in the policy and held that the petitioner could not claim a vested or exclusive right to continue indefinitely. Emphasising that public contracts must be governed by principles of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity, the Bench observed that the introduction of an open tender system ensures a level playing field for all similarly placed cooperative societies.

“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 for allotting the Contract/ Shoe-shine license to the registered society of Shoe shine boys only. The adoption of open tender in single packet inviting applications from the societies of shoe-shine workers for awarding the shoe-shine contract at stations will afford equal opportunity to all those who are similarly situated and the participation of the Societies shall be tested which shall include the qualification of its members, and their experience as the tender process involve screening by a Committee which is empowered to evaluate and submit its recommendation to the accepting Authority as per the standard operating procedure”, the Bench said.

Addressing the contention regarding removal of caste-based preference, the Court held that while earlier policies provided preference to societies comprising members from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the absence of such a clause in the 2018 policy does not render it unconstitutional. The Court observed that the core objective of the policy, generation of employment for persons belonging to the lower strata of society, continues to be preserved, and such benefit cannot be restricted solely on caste lines.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged the practical concerns raised by the petitioner society, particularly the dependence of its members on the shoe-shine activity for livelihood.

“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. We, therefore, direct Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to ensure that while fixing the tender price or allotting the contract, one of the condition subject to which the contract shall be awarded shall be of payment of minimum wages as per the applicable law to the members of the society. In fact, we also direct Respondent No.2 to include this as a condition in the tender itself”, it noted.

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the policy and the tender process, while ensuring that experience and worker welfare are duly factored into its implementation.

Cause Title: Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op. Society Ltd v. The General Manager, Central Railway Mumbai Division & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6893-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Jane Cox a/w Vinayak Suthar i/b Ghanshyam Thombare, Advocates.

Respondents: T.J. Pandian a/w Gautam Modanwal, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment