Gujarat High Court
Mina Ram Abhilash Gautam vs Ongc Limited on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11804 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MINA RAM ABHILASH GAUTAM
Versus
ONGC LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following prayers:-
"(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Sp. Civil Application.
(B) Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or direction and/or order directing to the Respondent No.1 and 2 to grant the benefit of Clause-3 of the settlement agreed by the respondents which is recorded by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, Ajmer u/s.12(3) of the I.D. Act and grant the amount of Group Insurance with Double Accident Scheme i.e. an amount of Rs.10 lakhs with interest to the petitioner as a Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:43:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined Legal Heirs of deceased Ram Abhilash who was working with respondent no.2 and expired on dated 09.03.2014 which is annexed at Annexure 'B' dated 18.07.2012. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the amount of Rs.10 lakhs with interest to the petitioner as per clause-3 of the agreement dated 18.07.2012 with interest. (D) Any other and further reliefs be granted in the interest of justice."
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent No.2 is the Contractor with whom respondent No.1 had entered into the contract for providing the security servicing, where the husband of the petitioner was working as a Security Guard. The husband of the petitioner served as a Security Guard since 2004 with the different contractors with whom respondent No.1 entered into the contract. The husband of the petitioner entered into the contract since 2004. At the initial stage, the husband of the petitioner was working with the contractor, namely, ISS as a Security Guard; thereafter, with the contractor, namely, Trig Guard Force Limited and at last, he was working with respondent No.2 as a Security Guard. The petitioner raised the grievance for regularization through the Union by filing the dispute before the learned CGIT, Ahmedabad. During the pendency of the reference, an agreement was arrived at between respondent No.1 and the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:43:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined Union of the employees under Section 12(3) before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Ajmer on 18.07.2012. As per the conditions of the agreement, the employee had to withdraw the cases filed with the different forum for getting the benift of the settlement 18.07.2012. On 09/03/2014, the husband of the petitioner expired due to a road accident, for which the FIR came to be registered and a post-mortem report was carried out. The grievance was raised by the present petitioner by filing the present petition under Section 12(3), the settlement which was arrived at provided for group insurance for contract labourers. It was further provided in the said settlement that the contractor will ensure group insurance cover for contract labour under the settlement through the LIC of India of Rs.5,00,000/- with double accident benefit and the premium of the insurance policy shall be paid by the concerned contractor, which would be reimbursed by the ONGC management. Therefore, claiming the benefit of the settlement dated 18.07.2012, the demand was made for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the insurance amount. The petitioner has also made a complaint, which was responded by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)-II, Ahmedabad on 22.03.2017 that for the dispute of the gratuity amount, the appropriate Authority Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:43:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined under the Payment of Gratuity Act would be the remedy and with regard to the group insurance and accident benefit, the petitioner was informed to approach the appropriate forum and therefore, the present petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemal K. Acharya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for respondent no. 2.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Acharya submits that as per the settlement, respondent No.2 has taken the responsibility to take insurance by making the payment of premium. However, though the petitioner was entitled to the double accident benefit, it was not paid and therefore, appropriate directions be issued upon respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to grant the benefit of Clause 3 of the settlement agreed before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Ajmer under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. On the other hand, the learned advocate Mr. Dave for respondent No.2 has submitted that the cause of action as stated in the petition is of the year 2014 and the petition is filed in the year 2023. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Dave that Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:43:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined the contractual workers were covered under the Employees' Compensation Policy issued by ICICI Lombard and the claim of the deceased husband was forwarded, which came to be rejected on the ground that since the deceased employee died while not on duty, he is not entitled to the compensation. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Dave that the case of the petitioner was also not covered under the settlement as at the relevant point in time, respondent No.2 had not claimed any charges of the insurance coverage from the respondent No.1. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Dave that the contract issued to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 did not contain the clause of insurance coverage for which the benefit is sought. The settlement, which was executed on 18/07/2012 was implemented in a phased manner after the withdrawal of all the cases. For the first time, on 08.09.2015 the respondent No.2 was informed by the respondent No.1 to obtain the group insurance covered for the contract labourers through the LIC of India. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Dave that the petitioner has been granted the pension under the ESI Act and has availed the benefit under the said Act. The learned advocate Mr. Dave further submits that in view of the rejection of the claim on Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:43:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined the ground of the compensation policy by ICICI Lombard, respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for payment of insurance.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Tanmay B. Karia for respondent No.1 has submitted that there was no employer - employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Karia that as per the settlement, insurance has to be taken by respondent No.2; therefore, respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for the payment of the insurance amount and therefore, no relief be granted against the present respondent.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges that the present petition is filed directly before this Court, claiming the benefit of insurance, which was agreed as per the settlement, as stated by the petitioner on referring to the settlement, which was executed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 18.07.2012. It emerges that the parties had agreed that the contractor would ensure group insurance for contract labour covered under the settlement through the LIC of India and it was agreed that double accident benefit would be obtained and the Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:43:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined premium of the insurance policy would be paid by the contractor concerned. As per the contention raised by respondent No. 2, the claim of the petitioner, which was forwarded to ICICI Lombard under the Employees' Compensation Policy, was rejected on the ground that the deceased employee had died on account of an accident when he was driving the Motorcycle and when he was not on duty. It is contended by the present petitioner that the grievance was raised before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)-II, the petitioner was informed to approach the appropriate forum.
8. In the opinion of this Court, if any breach of settlement, as alleged by the present petitioner, is committed, then the remedy lies under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, by misconceiving the fact that a remedy lies before this Court, the present petition has been filed directly before this Court.
9. In the above view, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act by raising the grievance of breach of settlement.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:43:21 IST 2025