Page No.# 1/9 vs Numaligarh Refinery Ltd And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1324 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs Numaligarh Refinery Ltd And 4 Ors on 21 July, 2025

Author: Kalyan Rai Surana

Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana

                                                                   Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010169352024




                                                             2025:GAU-AS:9365

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : Review.Pet./160/2024

         NIHAR PRASAD SHARMA
         S/O- LATE BARADA PRASAD SHARMA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF FLAT
         NO. 2B, ARCHCON ARCADE, DR. B. BARUAH ROAD, P.O. ULUBARI, P.S.
         PALTAN BAZAR, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTER
         NO. D-16, NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., TOWNSHIP, P.O. N.R. PROJECT
         DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785699



         VERSUS

         NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD AND 4 ORS
         A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A,
         G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM

         2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
          NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
         A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
          HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A
          G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
          GUWAHATI- 781005
         ASSAM

         3:THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)
          NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
         A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
          HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A
          G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
          GUWAHATI- 781005
         ASSAM

         4:INTERNAL COMMITTEE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN FOR
         WORK PLACE
          NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
                                                                            Page No.# 2/9

             A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
             REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER
             SMTI MADHUCHANDA ADHIKARY
             GM (CC)
             HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A
             G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
             GUWAHATI- 781005
             ASSAM

            5:SMTI. MONALISA DAS
             D/O- SHRI PULIN CHANDRA DAS
             OFFICER (PROJECT)
             NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
             ROOM NO. 54
             DHANSIRI GUEST HOUSE
             NUMALIGARH
             GOLAGHAT
            ASSAM
             PIN CODE- 78569

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR P KATAKI, MRS R BEGUM,MR. K N CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : MS M HAZARIKA (R-1,2,3), S J DUTTA(R-5),MR. M K DAS (R-
5),B SAHA (R-4),MR B P SARMAH(R-4),MR D DAS(R-4),MR. C CHAKRAVARTY(R-4),MR. R
HAZARIKA(R-4),MR. S SARMA(R-4),MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY,U DOLEY(R-1,2,3),MR D
KHAN(R-1,2,3)




             Linked Case : WP(C)/2163/2023

            NIHAR PRASAD SHARMA
            S/O- LATE BARADA PRASAD SHARMA
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 2B
            ARCHCON ARCADE
            DR. B. BARUAH ROAD
            P.O. ULUBARI
            P.S. PALTAN BAZAR
            DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
            PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. D-16
            NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.
            TOWNSHIP
            P.O. N.R. PROJECT DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
            ASSAM
            PIN- 785699
                                                   Page No.# 3/9



VERSUS

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED AND 4 ORS.
A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A
G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A
 G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
 GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM

3:THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A
G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM

4:INTERNAL COMMITTEE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN FOR
WORK PLACE
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER
SMTI MADHUCHANDA ADHIKARY
GM (CC)
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 122A
G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM

5:SMTI. MONALISA DAS
D/O- SHRI PULIN CHANDRA DAS
OFFICER (PROJECT)
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
ROOM NO. 54
DHANSIRI GUEST HOUSE
NUMALIGARH
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
                                                                          Page No.# 4/9

             PIN CODE- 785699
             ------------
             Advocate for : MR P KATAKI
             Advocate for : MS. S NEWAR appearing for NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
             AND 4 ORS.



                                  BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                       ORDER

Date : 21.07.2025

Heard Ms. R. Begum, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3; Mr. B.P. Sarmah, learned counsel, assisting Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel for respondent no.4; and Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

2) By filing this review petition, the petitioner, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2163/2023, has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 20.06.2024, passed by this Court in the said writ petition.

3) For the purpose of this order, it would suffice to state as follows:-

a. The respondent no. 5 had filed a complaint dated 28.07.2021, before the Presiding Officer of Internal Complaints Committee of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace, NRL (ICC for short), alleging that having consumed a drink given by the petitioner she became unconscious and her body was violated by the petitioner.

b. On 19.08.2021, the respondent no. 5 had also lodged an FIR against the petitioner, alleging sexual assault, which was registered as Golaghat P.S. Case No. 813/2021, under Sections 354A and 376 of the Page No.# 5/9

IPC.

c. In connection with the said Golaghat P.S. Case No. 813/2021, the petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021 and released on bail on 26.10.2021.

d. In the meantime on and from 10.08.2021, the ICC had initiated a proceeding against the petitioner. On culmination of the ex parte enquiry by the ICC, a report dated 19.11.2021 was submitted, whereby recommendation was made to the NRL authorities to take action against the petitioner for sexual harassment as misconduct in accordance with the provisions of service rules applicable to the petitioner.

e. Aggrieved by the said ICC report dated 19.11.2021, the petitioner had submitted an appeal before the Director (Technical) & Managing Director I/C. However, the said authority by a response dated 30.03.2022, the said authority had informed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the authority constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act for short).

f. The said Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021, was assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No. 2163/2023.

4) This Court, upon hearing all sides and after examining the materials on record, allowed the said writ petition, inter alia, by holding the petitioner to be entitled to grant one opportunity to participate in the ICC Enquiry proceeding by filing his written statement of defence and to cross- examine the witnesses. Resultantly, the petitioner was, inter alia, directed to Page No.# 6/9

submit his written statement within 05.07.2024, either physically or through e- mail to the competent authority. Other directions, not very relevant for the purpose of this order, have not been reiterated in order to maintain brevity.

5) By referring to the relevant provisions of the PoSH Act, 2013 and PoSH Rules, 2013, it has been submitted that the provisions of Section 10(1) of the PoSH Act provides for conciliation and under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the PoSH Act, the ICC is required to make enquiry in accordance with the service rules applicable to the petitioner.

6) It was submitted that the directions by this Court was not in accordance with and/or inconsistent with and/or in contravention of the provisions of Section 10(1) and 11(1) of the PoSH Act read with Rules 6(11) of the Conduct of Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff of Numaligarh Refinery.

7) It was submitted that while deciding the writ petition, this Court had failed to take note of the fact the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not aware as to whether there was due compliance of the Conduct of Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff of Numaligarh Refinery.

8) Therefore, it has been urged that the Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, had erred in law and on facts and therefore, the same be set aside by directing that the proceeding be held de novo.

9) The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that as the proceeding had reached the stage as envisaged under Section 11(1) of the PoSH Act, the stage of Section 10(1) of the said PoSH Act was over and thus, cannot be resorted to.

Page No.# 7/9

10) The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has also reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

11) The learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the respondent no. 5, who is the complainant, has filed an affidavit expressing her disinclination to proceed further against the petitioner.

12) Considered the submissions as well as the materials available on the record.

13) From the materials available on record, specifically the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is not in dispute that on 11.08.2021, upon appearance of the petitioner before the ICC, he was handed over a copy of the complaint dated 28.07.2021. However, till his arrest on 20.08.2021, the petitioner had not filed his written statement. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.09.2021, the petitioner was informed that on his release on bail, he should inform the ICC within 2 (two) days so that the date of hearing the petitioner could be fixed. The petitioner was also informed about the requirement to complete the enquiry in a time bound manner. The stand of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is that the ICC, after obtaining an order from the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat had met the petitioner in jail and give him an opportunity to explain and present his case, but the petitioner had conveyed that he would give his statement after being released on bail. However, though the petitioner was released on bail on 26.10.2021, he had not contacted the ICC.

14) Be that as it may, by the order dated 20.06.2024, passed by the Court in W.P.(C) No. 2163/2023, the Court, on certain conditions, had remanded the matter before the Internal Complaints Committee, NRL (ICC) for Page No.# 8/9

a fresh proceeding by giving the petitioner a last chance to file his written statement of defence and moreover, the petitioner was also granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses already examined by the ICC.

15) In the considered opinion of the Court, the stage of conciliation, as envisaged under Section 10(1) of the PoSH Act is already past and therefore, considering the requirement of Section 9 of the PoSH Act, mandating the ICC to complete its enquiry in a three month's time bound manner, the Court is of the considered opinion that this is neither a fit case nor a proper case to put the clock back to the stage of conciliation as envisaged in section 10(c) of the PoSH Act.

16) Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, this is not a case where the Court has committed any error apparent on the face of the record or did not apply the legal provisions in its correct perspective. Therefore, if the petitioner is of the view that he was required to be given an opportunity of conciliation proceeding as envisaged under Section 10(1) of the PoSH Act, then it must be construed that the order impugned in this review petition is an erroneous order and in that event review petition would not be maintainable on facts and in law.

17) In the case of Hage Gumto & Ors. v. Ninya Bagra & Ors., (2010) 1 GLR 174, the Division Bench of this Court had held that the power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power. Review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be permitted to act as an appeal in disguise.

18) Moreover, in respect of the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5, expressing that she does not want to prosecute the matter further, without expressing any opinion on the merit of such a stand, the Court is of the Page No.# 9/9

considered opinion that this review petition is not a proceeding where the said respondent is prosecuting the petitioner. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioner to take an appropriate stand in the appropriate form and in an appropriate manner as the respondent no. 5 may be so advised.

19) Therefore, in the light of the discussions above, the Court does not find merit in this review petition and thus, this review petition is dismissed.

20)             The parties are left to bear their own cost.

21)             As a lot of time has passed by in the process of the adjudication

of the writ petition and this review petition, where the petitioner's side has taken a lot of adjournments, the petitioner is now directed to positively appear before the ICC within 31.07.2025, in terms of the judgment and order dated 20.06.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2163/2023, failing which the ICC would proceed with the matter ex parte in accordance with law by treating the petitioner as absent on call. The other observations and directions contained in the said judgment order shall be applicable.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant