Thane: The Principal District Judge of the Thane court has rejected the appeal filed by the Divisional Commercial Manager (DCM) of Central Railway, which sought to prevent nine shoeshine boys from working at Thane and Mumbra railway stations. This appeal was filed in the absence of any shoeshine societies successfully securing tenders for performing shoe polishing on railway platforms.

The court held that since the livelihoods of the shoeshine boys depend on this work, it would not interfere with the trial court’s order. However, it granted the railways the option of approaching the trial court for a modification of the order if a new tender is floated and approved.

Principal District Judge S.B. Agarwal, in a six-page order, stated: “No doubt, the arrangement (of allowing nine shoeshine boys to work on the railway platform without any tender) was temporary in nature until the tender was issued and granted. As per the order of 2007, these nine were permitted to work. The trial court observed that the tender awarded to Bhima Shoeshine was rejected and that no new tender had been invited by the railways. The situation remains unchanged to this day. In view of this, a strong prima facie case for continuation is clearly made out since the livelihood of the plaintiffs is involved, and no interference is warranted in the impugned order.”

However, the court granted the railways the liberty to approach the trial court for a modification of the order as and when a fresh tender is allotted, regarding the continuation of the nine shoeshine boys working without tenders.

These shoeshine boys, who are the plaintiffs in this case, had filed the suit arguing that they had been carrying out shoe polishing and repair work at Thane and Mumbra railway stations for 20 years with railway permission.

However, by way of a letter dated November 1, 2023, they were directed to surrender their ID cards and badges, despite having paid their license fees. This development occurred after the railways invited tenders in 2023.

However, the societies that submitted tenders failed to comply with the required terms—including Bhima Shoeshine, which had initially been selected but later failed to meet the criteria. A few of the nine shoeshine boys were members of Bhima shoeshine society, and hence Bhima shoeshine society is also one among the plaintiffs who has been fighting against the mighty railways.

In these circumstances, the railways filed a suit along with an application for a temporary injunction. The railways, i.e., the appellant-defendant in the suit, contended that tenders were invited through a press notification dated October 21, 2001, and were awarded to M/s. Shramik Leather Equipment and Handgloves Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. for three years. The contract was later extended but eventually canceled in 2007.

Subsequently, M/s. Magasvargiya Boot Polish Workers Society was given the option to operate at Thane and Mumbra until a new tender was finalized. This arrangement included some of the plaintiffs who had previously worked with M/s. Shramik Leather Equipment and Handgloves Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd., allowing them to continue their work at the railway stations. However, this was always subject to the finalization of a tender and was considered a temporary arrangement.

Umesh Dularchand Ram, president of Bhima Shoeshine Workers Co-operative Society, while speaking on the matter, said, “I was the one who secured the tender and immediately deposited ₹15 lakh with the railway office in 2023. Now, the railways have canceled my tender, claiming it failed to meet some criteria, while these nine men are allowed to work in the absence of any tenders. In such a situation, where do I go to get my deposited money back?”

A new policy was framed on February 27, 2018, and further tenders were invited. However, these tenders were later canceled as Bhima Shoeshine did not have the required workers. On a second occasion, the tender was again awarded to Bhima Shoeshine Society, but the temporary arrangement was discontinued. As a result, the railways sought the rejection of the temporary arrangement for the ten shoeshine workers.