Gujarat High Court
Vipul Prajapati vs Ongc Limited on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9771 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VIPUL PRAJAPATI
Versus
ONGC LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Ajay Mehta waives notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following prayers:-
"(A) The Honble 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 the respondent to considedred the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.1065/2013, in which the Honble Supreme Court has confirmed the order passed by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal in Ref. ITC No.10/98 Апнеж and Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined further be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the wages from 06.12.2004 till the date of Memorandum of Appointment Letter i.e.13.08.2022 to the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the recruitment and promotion regulation act of the respondent.
(C) Be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the benifit of promotion to the petritioner as per the Recruitment and Promotion Regulation Act as the services of the petitioner is treated as a employee of the respondent w.e.f.01.01.1998 and after the completion of 3 years the benifits of promotions are given to the petitioner as follows;
Class-IV W-I (Rs.4300) to W-II (Rs.4500) Three experince W-II (Rs.4500) to W-III (Rs.4700) Six experince W-III (Rs.4700) to W-IV (Rs.5100) -- DO -- W-IV (Rs.5100) to W-V (Rs.5800) -- DO -- W-V (Rs.5800) to W-VI (Rs.6500) -- DO W-VI (Rs.6500) to W-VII (Rs.10220) -- DO --. And also paid the amount of arrears w.e.f.2011 till the date and also give all the benifits to the similarly situated employees of ONGC w.e.f.above mentioned period.
(D) Be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to pay all the differences amount to the petitioner w.e.f.06.12.2004 till today after considering the petitioner as a employee of the respondent corporation w.e.f.01.01.1998. i.e. to pay the differences in wages received by the other similarly situated employees. The differences in Pay-Scale granted to the other similarly situated employees whose services are regularise w.e.f.01.01.98 as per the direction of the Hon'ble Inustrial Tribunal which is confirmed upto the Honble Supreme Court and also considered the promotion as per the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined recruitment and Promotion Regulation Act of the respondent and pay the difference accordingly.
(E) Any other and further reliefs be granted in the interest of justice."
3. The case of the present petitioner is that he was working with the ONGC Canteen and had raised an industrial dispute through the Secretary of the Gujarat Labour Union, seeking a declaration that the petitioners are employees of ONGC. The said dispute was registered as Reference (ITC) No. 10 of 1998. The learned Industrial Tribunal, after hearing both parties, passed an award dated 12.12.2000, directing the management to treat the petitioner as an employee of ONGC with effect from 01.01.1998 and to extend all consequential benefits accordingly. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent filed a petition before this Court, being Special Civil Application (SCA) No. 3203 of 2001. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2012. Thereafter, an intra-court appeal was filed by the respondent, being Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 303 of 2013, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2014. Challenging the order of the Division Bench in the said LPA, the respondent preferred Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, being SLP (C) No. 1065 of 2015, which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2017. Despite the award of the learned Tribunal having been confirmed up to the Apex Court, the same was not complied with by the respondent. Instead, the respondent preferred a Review Application, being Review Application No. 571 of 2018, which also came to be dismissed on 15.03.2018. As the award remained unimplemented, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, being Misc. Civil Application MCA No. 667 of 2018. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent issued a memorandum of appointment to other similarly placed canteen employees on 01.05.2018, placing them in the revised pay scale of Rs.10,000-18,000 with effect from 01.01.2007. However, the respondent did not issue a similar appointment memorandum to the petitioner and only agreed to pay arrears from 01.01.1998 to 05.12.2004. This Court has dismissed the said contempt petition being MCA No. 667 of 2018, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of SLP (C) No. 11724 of 2019. The Apex Court vide order dated Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined 06.12.2021, directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and continue him as a regular employee with effect from 01.01.1998 and also directed payment of salary in the applicable pay scale along with back wages. Accordingly, the said contempt proceedings were disposed of. Subsequently, the petitioner again approached the Apex Court by filing Contempt Petition (C) No. 543 of 2022. The said petition was disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 05.03.2025, granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings permissible under law to redress his grievance, if any. In view of the above, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the wages for the period from 06.12.2004 till the date of issuance of the appointment order i.e. 13.08.2022.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya appearing for the petitioner, submits that the primary ground on which relief was denied to the petitioner was that he had not resumed duty despite being called upon to do so. However, learned advocate Mr. Acharya contends that Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined when the Division Bench adjudicated the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), no such contention regarding non- resumption of duty was raised by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya submits that false averments were placed on record before the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 1065 of 2015, and based on such submissions, the contempt petitions were disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may avail of an appropriate remedy as available under the law. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya submits that in fact, when other similarly situated canteen employees were offered memorandums of appointment in June 2018, no such offer was extended to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner did not resume duty since no formal appointment was given to him. In that background petitioner is entitled to the same benefits that have been extended to other identically situated employees.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, it clearly emerges that the award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 12.12.2000, directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as an employee of Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined ONGC with effect from 01.01.1998, stood confirmed up to the Apex Court. Despite the award having attained finality, the same was not complied with by the respondent. As a result, a contempt petition came to be filed before this Court. In the said contempt proceedings, this Court, vide its order dated 14.02.2019, made the following observations:-
"In view of the fact that the order under contempt is substantially complied with and applicant No.6 has not reported on duty, the application is dismissed. Notice is discharged."
7. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being SLP (C) No. 11724 of 2019. In the course of the proceedings, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, without entering into much dispute regarding the period during which the petitioner had not actually worked, the petitioner may be granted the pay scale from 01.01.1998 to 06.12.2004. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court was pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and continue him as a regular employee with effect from 01.01.1998, and to grant him the applicable pay scale Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined accordingly. It is also observed that with regard to the back wages, petitioner may be allowed back wages as payable to the regular employee as per the applicable rules governing the service conditions from 01.01.1998 and until 05.12.2004.
8. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed on 13.08.2022 and has been paid the wages as directed by the Apex Court in its earlier order. However, raising the grievance that he is entitled to benefits for the period from 05.12.2004 till 13.08.2022, a period not covered under the earlier directions, the petitioner once again approached the Apex Court by filing Contempt Petition (C) No. 543 of 2022. The Apex Court, vide its order dated 05.03.2025, passed the following order:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. We are satisfied that the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Court in SLP (C) No.11724 of 2019 has been substantially complied with and the present contempt the proceedings deserve Accordingly, to be closed. contempt proceedings are closed.
3. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
4. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be permissible under the law for the grievances, if any."
9. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in its order dated 05.03.2025, granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for redressal of his grievance, the present petition has been filed seeking necessary directions. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue as to whether the petitioner failed to resume duties despite being offered employment, or whether, in fact, no such offer of employment was made to the petitioner, is a disputed question of fact. Such factual disputes require adjudication through a proper evidentiary process, where both parties are afforded an opportunity to lead evidence and contest each other's claims. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate such disputed questions of fact. Hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
11. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:26:42 IST 2025