Gujarat High Court
Mina Ram Abhilash Gautam vs Ongc Limited on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11804 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MINA RAM ABHILASH GAUTAM
Versus
ONGC LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, claiming the following prayers:-
"(A) The Hon'ble 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 to the Respondent No.1 and 2 to grant
the benefit of Clause-3 of the settlement agreed by the
respondents which is recorded by the Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner, Ajmer u/s.12(3) of the I.D. Act and grant the
amount of Group Insurance with Double Accident Scheme i.e.
an amount of Rs.10 lakhs with interest to the petitioner as a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Legal Heirs of deceased Ram Abhilash who was working with
respondent no.2 and expired on dated 09.03.2014 which is
annexed at Annexure 'B' dated 18.07.2012.
(C) Be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the amount
of Rs.10 lakhs with interest to the petitioner as per clause-3
of the agreement dated 18.07.2012 with interest.
(D) Any other and further reliefs be granted in the interest of
justice."
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent No.2
is the Contractor with whom respondent No.1 had entered into
the contract for providing the security servicing, where the
husband of the petitioner was working as a Security Guard. The
husband of the petitioner served as a Security Guard since 2004
with the different contractors with whom respondent No.1
entered into the contract. The husband of the petitioner entered
into the contract since 2004. At the initial stage, the husband of
the petitioner was working with the contractor, namely, ISS as a
Security Guard; thereafter, with the contractor, namely, Trig
Guard Force Limited and at last, he was working with respondent
No.2 as a Security Guard. The petitioner raised the grievance for
regularization through the Union by filing the dispute before the
learned CGIT, Ahmedabad. During the pendency of the reference,
an agreement was arrived at between respondent No.1 and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Union of the employees under Section 12(3) before the Deputy
Chief Labour Commissioner, Ajmer on 18.07.2012. As per the
conditions of the agreement, the employee had to withdraw the
cases filed with the different forum for getting the benift of the
settlement 18.07.2012. On 09/03/2014, the husband of the
petitioner expired due to a road accident, for which the FIR came
to be registered and a post-mortem report was carried out. The
grievance was raised by the present petitioner by filing the
present petition under Section 12(3), the settlement which was
arrived at provided for group insurance for contract labourers. It
was further provided in the said settlement that the contractor
will ensure group insurance cover for contract labour under the
settlement through the LIC of India of Rs.5,00,000/- with double
accident benefit and the premium of the insurance policy shall be
paid by the concerned contractor, which would be reimbursed by
the ONGC management. Therefore, claiming the benefit of the
settlement dated 18.07.2012, the demand was made for payment
of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the insurance amount. The petitioner
has also made a complaint, which was responded by the Labour
Enforcement Officer (Central)-II, Ahmedabad on 22.03.2017 that
for the dispute of the gratuity amount, the appropriate Authority
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
under the Payment of Gratuity Act would be the remedy and with
regard to the group insurance and accident benefit, the
petitioner was informed to approach the appropriate forum and
therefore, the present petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemal K. Acharya for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for
respondent no. 2.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Acharya submits that as per the
settlement, respondent No.2 has taken the responsibility to take
insurance by making the payment of premium. However, though
the petitioner was entitled to the double accident benefit, it was
not paid and therefore, appropriate directions be issued upon
respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to grant the benefit of
Clause 3 of the settlement agreed before the Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner, Ajmer under Section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
5. On the other hand, the learned advocate Mr. Dave for
respondent No.2 has submitted that the cause of action as stated
in the petition is of the year 2014 and the petition is filed in the
year 2023. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Dave that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
the contractual workers were covered under the Employees'
Compensation Policy issued by ICICI Lombard and the claim of
the deceased husband was forwarded, which came to be rejected
on the ground that since the deceased employee died while not
on duty, he is not entitled to the compensation. It is submitted by
the learned advocate Mr. Dave that the case of the petitioner
was also not covered under the settlement as at the relevant
point in time, respondent No.2 had not claimed any charges of
the insurance coverage from the respondent No.1. It is submitted
by the learned advocate Mr. Dave that the contract issued to
respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 did not contain the clause
of insurance coverage for which the benefit is sought. The
settlement, which was executed on 18/07/2012 was
implemented in a phased manner after the withdrawal of all the
cases. For the first time, on 08.09.2015 the respondent No.2 was
informed by the respondent No.1 to obtain the group insurance
covered for the contract labourers through the LIC of India. It is
submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Dave that the petitioner
has been granted the pension under the ESI Act and has availed
the benefit under the said Act. The learned advocate Mr. Dave
further submits that in view of the rejection of the claim on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
the ground of the compensation policy by ICICI Lombard,
respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for payment of insurance.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Tanmay B. Karia for respondent No.1
has submitted that there was no employer - employee
relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is
submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Karia that as per the
settlement, insurance has to be taken by respondent No.2;
therefore, respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for the
payment of the insurance amount and therefore, no relief be
granted against the present respondent.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, it emerges that the present
petition is filed directly before this Court, claiming the benefit of
insurance, which was agreed as per the settlement, as stated by
the petitioner on referring to the settlement, which was
executed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
dated 18.07.2012. It emerges that the parties had agreed that
the contractor would ensure group insurance for contract labour
covered under the settlement through the LIC of India and it was
agreed that double accident benefit would be obtained and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11804/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
premium of the insurance policy would be paid by the contractor
concerned. As per the contention raised by respondent No. 2, the
claim of the petitioner, which was forwarded to ICICI Lombard
under the Employees' Compensation Policy, was rejected on the
ground that the deceased employee had died on account of an
accident when he was driving the Motorcycle and when he was
not on duty. It is contended by the present petitioner that the
grievance was raised before the Labour Enforcement Officer
(Central)-II, the petitioner was informed to approach the
appropriate forum.
8. In the opinion of this Court, if any breach of settlement, as
alleged by the present petitioner, is committed, then the remedy
lies under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, by misconceiving
the fact that a remedy lies before this Court, the present petition
has been filed directly before this Court.
9. In the above view, the present petition is disposed of with
liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the Industrial
Disputes Act by raising the grievance of breach of settlement.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
