No Automatic Right, But Experience Counts: Bombay HC Upholds Shoe-Shine Tender Policy

The Bombay High Court has upheld the Central Railway’s 2018 Shoe-Shine Policy, ruling that long-standing shoe-shine workers at railway stations cannot claim an automatic or exclusive right to continue their work without participating in a fair and open tender process, while at the same time directing authorities to protect their livelihood concerns by factoring in their past experience and ensuring minimum wages.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed a plea by a Mumbai-based cooperative society of shoe-shine workers that had challenged the policy and the tender process introduced under it.

The Court held that the Railways were justified in introducing an open bidding system for awarding contracts and clarified that while the petitioners could not claim monopoly over the work, their experience must be given due weightage. It further directed that payment of minimum wages must be made a mandatory condition in such contracts.

The case was brought by a cooperative society whose members had been polishing shoes at stations such as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Masjid Bunder, and Sandhurst Road for several decades.

The society argued that the new policy, by requiring open tenders and removing earlier preferential treatment for certain groups, threatened the livelihood of workers who had depended on this work for years.

According to them, the earlier policy framework was designed as a welfare measure to support workers from economically weaker sections, and the shift to competitive bidding risked displacing them entirely.

The High Court, however, noted that while the original policy introduced in the late 1990s did focus on generating employment for the lowest strata of society, including workers from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the policy had evolved over time.

It observed that the 2018 policy continued to aim at providing livelihood opportunities but adopted a more structured and transparent method by introducing an open tender system among societies of shoe-shine workers.

Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that long years of service entitled the petitioners to continued renewal of contracts without competition. It held that allowing such a claim would exclude other similarly placed workers and societies from accessing the same opportunity, effectively creating a monopoly.

The Court emphasised that public contracts must be distributed through fair and competitive processes, especially where multiple groups are equally dependent on the same source of livelihood.

At the same time, the Bench acknowledged the human and economic concerns raised by the petitioners. It recognised that many of the workers had spent decades in the same line of work and might not easily transition to other occupations.

Balancing these concerns with the need for fairness, the Court directed the Railways to consider the past experience of existing societies when evaluating bids, particularly at stations where they had been operating.

The Court also addressed a significant gap in the 2018 policy, the absence of an explicit requirement to ensure minimum wages for workers.

Observing that this omission could adversely affect vulnerable workers, the Court directed the Railways to incorporate a condition in the tender process mandating payment of minimum wages in accordance with applicable law.

The Railways, for their part, argued that the open tender system was necessary to ensure transparency and prevent monopolisation, and that several other cooperative societies had sought an opportunity to participate in the shoe-shine business at railway stations.

The Court found merit in this position, noting that an open, competitive process would provide a level playing field to all eligible societies while reducing the possibility of arbitrariness or favouritism.

Ultimately, the Court held that the 2018 policy strikes a balance between livelihood generation and fair allocation of public contracts.

It clarified that while the petitioners are free to participate in the tender process and may benefit from their experience, they cannot insist on exclusive continuation of contracts.

The Railways were permitted to proceed with the tender process, subject to compliance with the Court’s directions on experience-based consideration and wage protection.

Case Title: Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op. Society Ltd. v. General Manager, Central Railway & Ors.

Bench: Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande

Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026