Gujarat High Court
O.N.G.C. Adminitrative And ... vs Ongc Ltd on 19 July, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/4698/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4698 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4699 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4700 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4701 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4702 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
O.N.G.C. ADMINITRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CONTRACT WORKERS
ASSOCIATION
Versus
ONGC LTD & 2 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR K R MISHRA(6312) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. AISHWARYA REDDY for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Page 1 of 6
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 21 21:43:50 IST 2022
C/SCA/4698/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2022
Date : 19/07/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This group of petitions is arising out of the same facts and the petitions
are raising identical issues and hence, at the request of both the sides,
the same are taken up for joint hearing and final disposal. With consent,
the facts are recorded from the lead matter i.e. Special Civil Application
No.4698 of 2015.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with
following prayers :
"a. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue wit of mandamus or
certiorari or appropriate wit and/or direction directing the order
dated 02/12/2014 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Reference
(CGITA) No. 211/2004 (Old No. 130/1999) is illegal, improper and
arbitrary and be please to quash and set aside the same.
b. YOUR LORDSHIPS be further pleased to direct the respondent
No. 1 to maintain equality and parity in similarly situated employees
inter se from the date of implementation of the aforesaid so called
settlement and to pay arrears, if any, arisen from such
implementation to the concerned workmen within stipulated time
period.
c. YOUR LORDSHIPS be further pleased to restrain the respondent
No.1 from altering the service conditions of the concern workmen in
any manner whatsoever."
3. The challenge is to the order passed by the CGIT below Exh-55 dated
02-12-2014 in an interim Application at Exh-55 made in the main
Reference (CGITA) No.211 of 2004, which is still pending. The original
reference was pertaining to the regularization of the members of the
Union with the respondents.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that though
respondent no.1, being the model Employer and the Government of
C/SCA/4698/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2022
India undertaking, is resorting to very unfair labour practice by alluring
the members of the Union to enter into the settlement by accepting the
terms of settlement, which according to the learned Advocate for the
petitioner, is unfair and adverse to the interest of the members of the
Union.
5. It is submitted that the model Employer is forcing, if not directly,
indirectly to accept the settlement and give the benefits of settlement by
putting a condition of withdrawing from pending reference. Therefore,
it is an attempt to frustrate the reference itself.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that respondent- ONGC
Ltd. resorting to the unfair practice, is evident from the terms of
settlement, wherein Clause-6 of the settlement provides for Withdrawal
of pending court or tribunal cases, which are related to the demand for
regularization and revision of wages. Also, settlement was to be entered
into on or before 31-08-2012 only, but just to demoralize the contract
employees, such period is extended and even after the dates specified,
the benefits of settlement is extended to those who are withdrawing
from the litigation.
7. It is submitted that CGIT has failed to address all the contentions raised
by the petitioner with regard to the prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss. It is submitted that as the members of
the petitioner are not accepting the terms of settlement, no benefit has
been extended to them. As a result, they are not being given benefits as
are given to other employees, who are undertaking the similar work. It
is submitted that Reference is very old and the members of the
petitioner - Union are paid minimum as compared to others, who have
accepted the terms of settlement.
C/SCA/4698/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2022
8. As against this, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent
submitted that the Reference is still pending and if interim relief as
prayed for, is granted, then, it would be allowing the entire Reference
at an interim stage. It is submitted that CGIT has taken into
consideration all the aspects and as the Reference is still pending, the
application has not been entertained. It is submitted that the
respondent- ONGC Ltd. is complying with all the Notifications issued
from time to time by the Central Government regarding minimum
wages and its revision periodically every six months, which includes
revision of Dearness Allowance as well and therefore, the contention of
the petitioner that their member employees are left high and dry, in a
poor condition and forced to accept terms of settlement, may not be
accepted.
9. In rejoinder, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that terms of
the settlement provide for several benefits, which the petitioner is not
claiming at this stage, but only claim is to get 35% revision on wages,
which otherwise is given to the other employees.
10. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having
perused the documents on record, it appears that the original Reference
was raised for the purpose as to whether ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad is
justified in not regularizing the services of the 107 contractual workmen
referred to in the list annexed to the Reference and if not, then what
relief the individual workman is entitled to. From the impugned order,
it appears that the petitioner - Union was not party at the time of
original Reference, which was made on behalf of the other Unions and
the petitioner, as is recorded in the impugned order, was newly added
Association, which filed Application at Exh-55 in the pending Reference
on 08-05-2014. In the prayer clause in the application, it is prayed for
extending the benefits of wage revision as per Clause-2 of the
C/SCA/4698/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2022
settlement dated 18-07-2012 to the workmen, who are members of the
petitioner- Union.
11. The settlement in Form-H as per Rule-58 is placed on record at
Annexure-B, where the Wage Revision is provided for under Clause-2
for increase by 35% on the prevailing minimum wages to each contract
labour. This settlement has been signed by representing Employers /
Contractors and the representative Unions. One of the conditions for
the terms of settlement was under Clause-6 of the settlement that whole
package of benefits is to be extended to the contract labour deployed in
their operations by the Contractors, who had agreed to the settlement
terms.
12. In the opinion of the Court, the fact that the majority of the Union
representing the interest of the workmen have signed this settlement
and are reaping the benefits, it cannot be treated to be an allurement
for frustrating the rights of the workmen. The settlement is bipartite
settlement and nothing is on record to indicate that the same is out of
allurement. Moreover, option is given for those employees, who would
not enter into the settlement to continue to prosecute their Reference
not only that but such employees have been continued with the
respondent- ONGC Ltd. and as stated by learned Advocate for the
respondent- ONGG Ltd., each of such employees who have not signed
the terms of settlement are being paid wages as per the norms specified
by the Central Government from time to time and have also been given
upward revision of minimum wages including periodical revision in
Dearness Allowance as per the Notification issued by the Central
Government.
13. In the opinion of the Court, therefore, framing of the settlement and
entering of settlement by Contract Employees through their Union,
C/SCA/4698/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2022
cannot be termed to be an exploitative practice to frustrate the
Reference itself. The Court has perused the impugned order below at
Exh-55 and the Court is of the view that Presiding Officer of CGIT has
assigned just and necessary reasoning to dismiss the interim relief
Application at Exh-55. The petitioner is unable to point out the
jurisdictional error or perversity in the order, more particularly when
such order is passed at an interim stage, to warrant any interference
under Article-227 of the Constitution of India.
14. In view of the aforesaid, all these petitions deserve to and are hereby
dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
PARESH SOMPURA
