Arun Sharma vs Indian Oil Corporation & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1943 Del

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Judgment reserved on: April 18 , 2017
                                                    Judgment delivered on: April 21, 2017

+       W.P.(C) 8057/2015
        ARUN SHARMA                                                               ..... Petitioner
                                 Through:     Mr. Bheem Sain Jain, Adv.
                                 versus
        INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ANR                                     ..... Respondents

                                 Through:     Mr. V.N. Kaura, Adv. with Ms. Paramjeet
                                              Benipal, Adv. for R-1
                                              Ms. Manjula Gandhi, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr.
                                              Himanshu Dubey, Adv. & Mr. R.M. Tripathi, GP
                                              for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                                          J UDGMEN T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to:-

a) Pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order directing the Respondent No.1 to give joining to the Petitioner with immediate effect in terms of the directions of the Respondent No.2 i.e Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as well as its own letter dated 05.05.2010 alongwith all the back wages and benefits including the promotion benefits, which the Petitioner is entitled to.

b) Direct the Respondent No.1, in addition to the aforesaid, to compensate the Petitioner for the harassment and torture, mental as well

as physical, caused to the Petitioner due to the illegal and biased actions of the Respondent No.1.

c) Pass any other relief(s)/order/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a Cricketer, was appointed

as an Apprentice Trainee sports for one year by the respondent no.1 under the then

relevant Sports Quota Policy. On June 9, 1999 after successful completion of the

Apprenticeship training period and finding his performance satisfactory, respondent

No.1 appointed the petitioner as a Trainee Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that on

May 30, 2002, his services were terminated without any reason on the alleged ground of

unsatisfactory performance. It is his case, on February 16, 2004, he challenged his

illegal termination before the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which had found

the termination of the petitioner, who had served for four years as unfair as well as too

harsh. The ONGC, vide its letter dated February 16, 2004 referred the matter back to

the Board of the respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.

3. It is averred and contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

Board of respondent No.1 vide its letter dated June 08, 2004 upheld the termination of

the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, the said grounds were

re-invented unlike the termination letter of May 30, 2002. The learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that petitioner again appealed before the Ministry vide his letter

dated May 12, 2005 alleging discrimination, favouratism and biased action against him.

The Ministry again remanded the matter back to the respondent No.1 for taking a

sympathetic approach suitably accommodating the petitioner in its work force. It is

conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on May 26, 2006, the Board of the

respondent No.1 reiterated its decision on the termination of the petitioner on the ground

that the petitioner had not represented U.P. in Cooch Behar Trophy Tournaments in the

year 1990-91 and 1991-92 as claimed by him. It is the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that on January 25, 2010, the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas again wrote to respondent No.1. According to him, the Ministry noted that

the Board passed the earlier orders on June 8, 2004 and May 26, 2006 without taking

note of full facts of the case. The Ministry took note of the facts, which clearly

indicated that the petitioner had been victim of systematic discrimination and

favouratism and accordingly, the Ministry advised the Board of the respondent No.1 to

consider once again the case of reinstatement of the petitioner in IOC or any of its

subsidiaries in the meeting scheduled on January 29, 2010.

4. It is averred in the petition and contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that pursuant to the letter dated January 25, 2010 of the Ministry-respondent No.2 on

May 5, 2010 directed appointment of the petitioner in one of the Joint Venture

companies of respondent No.1 namely IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd , a

Joint Venture company of respondent No.1 and Oil Tanking, Germany. He states that

what followed the said appointment was a nightmare. He states that the petitioner was

in fact engaged in an alleged group Company of IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services

Ltd under Assam Petroleum Limited i.e Newsco Directional and Horizontal Drilling

Services (Asia) Inc., as Business Liaison Executive, which was a contractor and the

petitioner was appointed on contractual basis. The petitioner has also averred and

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was subsequently referred to

Petronet LNG Limited, another Joint Venture Company of IOC in the year 2012.

Reference is made to various correspondence made between the respondent No.1 and

the said Joint Venture.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an earlier writ petition, which was

filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 3985/2015, which was disposed of on April

22, 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner has not

challenged his termination in any judicial forum. He states, the case of the petitioner is

only on the strength of the letter dated January 25, 2010 wherein, the respondent No.2

has called upon the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for

reinstatement in IOC or any its subsidiaries. He has drawn my attention to various

communications, to contend that the petitioner's case, need to have been considered for

appointment in IOC or in any of the subsidiaries of the said company. He states that

unfortunately, this exercise has not been carried out by the respondent, which resulted in

grave prejudice to the petitioner as he has remained without employment for all these

years, more particularly, when there is a clear conclusion of the Ministry respondent

No.2 in its communication dated January 25, 2010 that the termination of the petitioner

was illegal.

6. On the other hand, Mr. V.N. Kaura learned counsel for the respondent No.1

would draw my attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 taking a

preliminary objection that the present petition is hit by delay and laches. That apart, he

states that the initial W.P.(C) No. 3985/2015 filed by the petitioner was disposed of

giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition provided there exist a Sports Quota

Policy of the respondent No.1 and the petitioner satisfies the ingredients of the said

Policy. That apart, he states, the present petition having been filed after 13 years of the

termination, need to be dismissed on delay and laches. That apart, he has drawn my

attention to reasons leading to the termination of the petitioner. That apart, he states

that pursuant to the direction of the Ministry respondent No.2 in 2004 and 2006, the

Board of the respondent No.1 had considered the matter and found the termination of

the petitioner in order. He states that pursuant to the communication dated January 25,

2010 of the respondent No.2, the petitioner was finally recruited as Business Liaison

Executive, in a broader group company of IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd, a

Joint Venture between OIC and Oil Tanking, Germany. However, the petitioner did not

find the position to his liking and abandoned the position in 2011. He also draws my

attention to the communication made by the counsel for the respondent with the counsel

for the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court on December 9, 2016 to produce

the list of Joint Ventures companies of the respondent No.1 and also the copies of the

communications made by the respondent No.1 with the Joint Venture companies to

contend that most of the Joint Venture companies have stated that they have no

vacancies. He states that the prayers as made in the writ petition cannot be granted.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the conceded position that

the petitioner has not challenged his termination from the respondent No.1 organization

in the year 2002. That apart, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to assail the same.

In any case, the limited scope of the petition is, whether the petitioner can seek relief on

the basis of the directions of respondent No.2 dated January 25, 2010 and the

respondent No.1's own communication dated May 5, 2010 of the Director, Human

Resource of the respondent No.1 Corporation to the President IOT Infrastructure and

Energy Services Limited. In the communication dated January 25, 2010, the respondent

No.1 has only advised the respondent No.1 to consider the case for reinstatement of the

petitioner in IOC or any of its subsidiaries. The respondent No.1 has taken a stand that

the case of the petitioner was considered by the Board not only in 2010 but even earlier

to that, in the year 2004 and 2006. In the years 2004 and 2006, the Board was of the

view that the termination of the petitioner by the Competent Authority, is in order. The

Board having taken a decision, the respondent No.2 could not have in a subsequent

communication on January 25, 2010 advised the Board to reconsider the reinstatement

of the petitioner in IOC or any of its subsidiaries. Suffice to state, the respondent

No.1's consistent stand is the termination of the petitioner is justified, if that be so the

aspect of reinstatement of the petitioner in the IOC would not arise. That apart, what is

noted from the communication dated January 25, 2010 is the advice of the respondent

No.2 to respondent No.1 to consider reinstatement of the petitioner in subsidiary

companies. It is a settled position of law, every company is a separate legal entity and

is governed by its own Rules of recruitment. The recruitment in IOC or in any of its

subsidiaries cannot be made de-hors the Recruitment Rules without issuing

advertisement calling for applications from the public at large. That apart, I note, in

reference to the letter dated January 25, 2010, the Director Human Resource has written

the letter dated May 5, 2010 to one of the companies namely IOT Infrastructure and

Energy Services Limited. It is also noted, the petitioner was granted appointment on

June 22, 2010. It appears that the same was not to the liking of the petitioner. The

satisfaction of the petitioner is immaterial. The petitioner should be concerned with the

employment. Unfortunately, he quit that employment. That apart, the communications

placed by the respondent No.1 pursuant to the order of this Court dated December 9,

2016 reveals that there are no vacancies/the case of the petitioner cannot be considered

in view of the recruitment/appointment procedure and the same are justified.

8. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that two Joint Venture

companies have not responded to the communication made by the respondent No.1

would be immaterial when this Court is of the view that the respondent No.2 could not

have advised to the respondent No.1 to consider the reinstatement of the petitioner in

other Joint Venture company contrary to the Rules & Regulations. The petitioner

having accepted his termination has no right to seek the prayers as made in the writ

petition. It is not for the respondent No.1 to look for an employment of the petitioner

commensurating his qualifications and experience like an Employment Exchange. I

may record, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the letter

dated January 25, 2010 by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 was not a direction

but in the nature of an advice. In other words, he would state, it was not mandatory

direction for the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner.

9. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any merit in the petition. The

petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. The writ petition is dismissed. No

costs.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J APRIL 21, 2017 ak