Delhi High Court
N S Rana vs M/S Hindustan Petrolieum ... on 4 August, 2015
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 04.08.2015
+ LPA 457/2015
N S RANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr S.M. Hooda, Adv.
versus
M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLIEUM CORPORATION LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Raj Birbal, Sr. Adv with Ms Raavi
Birbal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
% CM No. 12591/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
LPA 457/2015 and CM No. 12592/2015 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in re-filing)
1. The appeal is time barred by 831 days. The reasons disclosed by the learned
counsel for the appellant are unconvincing. The appellant is unable to satisfy as to
what date the appeal was, in fact, presented earlier as it sought to be argued today.
No filing number or other such particulars have been disclosed.
2. Regardless of the delay, we have also considered the merits based on the
submissions of the appellant. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by
filing W.P.(C) No. 1127/1996, complaining arbitrary termination of service with
effect from 11.03.1994. He had worked with the respondent-Management
(hereinafter referred to as "HPCL") from 12.08.1983, till the date of his
LPA No.457/2015 Page 1
termination, i.e., 11.03.1994. On the said later date, his services were discontinued
on account of a Settlement arrived at between HPCL and its Workers' Union. In
terms of Settlement, such of the employees who were 25 years of age as on the
month of the formation of the Petroleum Workers' Labour Cooperative Society
(referred in the Settlement as "Society") or on the date they joined the Society as
members, were entitled to be regularized. This was the intrinsic part of clause (i).
HPCL terminated the appellant's employment on the ground that he was more
than 25 years on the relevant date. Since the appellant was aggrieved, he had
approached this Court earlier. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated
01.02.2000 granting him liberty to raise an industrial dispute which he did.
3. The consequential reference led to the adjudication of ID No.30/2002 by the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Labour Court accepted the appellant's
contention that the condition with regard to the regularization, i.e., of being 25
years as of June, 1985 was vague and, therefore, could not be insisted upon. The
Labour Court directed his reinstatement.
4. HPCL filed a writ petition, questioning the award of the Labour Court. By
the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the terms of
settlement dated 09.03.1994 were clear and that the Labour Court fell into error in
directing reinstatement. The finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard is to
the following effect:-
"11. It may be noted that absorption/regularization of the
candidate was subject to the terms and conditions in the
agreement. The said terms were not challenged before the
Tribunal. The onus was on the Respondent to prove that he was
less than 25 years of age. No certificate was produced by the
Respondent in his evidence. In fact the learned trial court
totally brushed aside the said evidence on the ground that this
term is vague and due to the fact that the workman had worked
LPA No.457/2015 Page 2
for 11 years directed regularization. The tribunal could not
have granted regularization contrary to the terms of settlement
arrived at between the parties. The reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the Respondent on Rourkela Shramik
Shangh (supra) is misconceived as in the said decision the only
issue before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court related to the
interpretation of an order passed by it in R.K. Panda & Ors.
Vs. Steel Authority of India & Ors.
13. In view of the above, the finding of the learned Trial Court
that the stipulation regarding 25 years of age is vague is
erroneous as the same gets clarified further by the relaxation to
30 years for members belonging to SC/ST community on the
month of formation of the society i.e. June 1985 or joining the
society the members if that is later. Further the Respondent was
clearly aware of the requirement due to which a certificate in
which year of birth was tempered was filed before this Court.
Clearly the onus was on the Respondent to prove that he fell
within the four corners of the agreement which he failed to do.
The impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside
accordingly."
5. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the findings are unsustainable
because the stipulation with respect to 25 years is indefinite and incapable of
enforcement. It was also urged that the appellant was, in fact, less than 25 years of
age as on the relevant cut-off date, i.e., the month of formation of the society
specifically June, 1985. Learned counsel relied upon the findings of the Labour
Court in this regard.
6. The consideration of the issue of the learned Single Judge, in our opinion,
cannot be characterized as unreasonable. Para (i) of the Memorandum of
Settlement, which is relevant for the purposes of this case, reads as follow:-
"(i) It is agreed that the members of the Society engaged in
handling cylinders and security at the Shakurbasti LPG Plant
mentioned in Annexure-II, subject to meeting the eligibility
LPA No.457/2015 Page 3
criteria as laid down below in respect of age and educational
qualification, will be absorbed on the permanent payroll of the
Corporation and assigned at any location in Grade M-01 in NZ
depending on the availability of vacancies.
AGE: 25 years of age as on the month of formation of the
society i.e. June, 1985 or joining the society by the members, if
that is later. (Relaxed to 30 years for members belonging to
SC/ST Community.)
Educational Qualification: Minimum 8th pass.
7. It is apparent that if there was any doubt as to whether the reference of 25
years of age, as of June, 1985, is vague, i.e., it is unspecific about whether it is
maximum age or minimum age, any doubt would be clarified by the further
stipulation contained in para (i) with respect to the relaxation allowed to the
members of the SC/ST community to 30 years. The use of the expression
'relaxation' puts the matter beyond any controversy; the question of relaxation
would not occur in the context unless the stipulation referred to maximum age.
The question of relaxation of minimum age would not be relevant when the issue
concerns regularization.
8. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the
order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal along with application is dismissed for the above reasons.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
V.K. SHALI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 04, 2015
BG
LPA No.457/2015 Page 4
