Gujarat High Court
Vipul Prajapati vs Ongc Limited on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9771 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VIPUL PRAJAPATI
Versus
ONGC LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Ajay
Mehta waives notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for following prayers:-
"(A) The Honble 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 the respondent to considedred the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.1065/2013, in which
the Honble Supreme Court has confirmed the order passed by the
Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal in Ref. ITC No.10/98 Апнеж and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
further be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the wages from
06.12.2004 till the date of Memorandum of Appointment Letter
i.e.13.08.2022 to the petitioner and further be pleased to direct
the respondent to consider the recruitment and promotion
regulation act of the respondent.
(C) Be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the benifit of
promotion to the petritioner as per the Recruitment and Promotion
Regulation Act as the services of the petitioner is treated as a
employee of the respondent w.e.f.01.01.1998 and after the
completion of 3 years the benifits of promotions are given to the
petitioner as follows;
Class-IV
W-I (Rs.4300) to W-II (Rs.4500) Three experince
W-II (Rs.4500) to W-III (Rs.4700) Six experince
W-III (Rs.4700) to W-IV (Rs.5100) -- DO --
W-IV (Rs.5100) to W-V (Rs.5800) -- DO --
W-V (Rs.5800) to W-VI (Rs.6500) -- DO
W-VI (Rs.6500) to W-VII (Rs.10220) -- DO --.
And also paid the amount of arrears w.e.f.2011 till the date and
also give all the benifits to the similarly situated employees of
ONGC w.e.f.above mentioned period.
(D) Be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to pay all the
differences amount to the petitioner w.e.f.06.12.2004 till today
after considering the petitioner as a employee of the respondent
corporation w.e.f.01.01.1998. i.e. to pay the differences in wages
received by the other similarly situated employees. The differences
in Pay-Scale granted to the other similarly situated employees
whose services are regularise w.e.f.01.01.98 as per the direction of
the Hon'ble Inustrial Tribunal which is confirmed upto the Honble
Supreme Court and also considered the promotion as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
recruitment and Promotion Regulation Act of the respondent and
pay the difference accordingly.
(E) Any other and further reliefs be granted in the interest of
justice."
3. The case of the present petitioner is that he was working
with the ONGC Canteen and had raised an industrial
dispute through the Secretary of the Gujarat Labour
Union, seeking a declaration that the petitioners are
employees of ONGC. The said dispute was registered as
Reference (ITC) No. 10 of 1998. The learned Industrial
Tribunal, after hearing both parties, passed an award
dated 12.12.2000, directing the management to treat the
petitioner as an employee of ONGC with effect from
01.01.1998 and to extend all consequential benefits
accordingly. Aggrieved by the said award, the
respondent filed a petition before this Court, being
Special Civil Application (SCA) No. 3203 of 2001. The
said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated
03.10.2012. Thereafter, an intra-court appeal was filed
by the respondent, being Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)
No. 303 of 2013, which also came to be dismissed vide
order dated 19.03.2014. Challenging the order of the
Division Bench in the said LPA, the respondent preferred
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, being
SLP (C) No. 1065 of 2015, which too came to be
dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2017. Despite the
award of the learned Tribunal having been confirmed up
to the Apex Court, the same was not complied with by
the respondent. Instead, the respondent preferred a
Review Application, being Review Application No. 571 of
2018, which also came to be dismissed on 15.03.2018.
As the award remained unimplemented, the petitioner
filed a contempt petition, being Misc. Civil Application
MCA No. 667 of 2018. During the pendency of the said
petition, the respondent issued a memorandum of
appointment to other similarly placed canteen
employees on 01.05.2018, placing them in the revised
pay scale of Rs.10,000-18,000 with effect from
01.01.2007. However, the respondent did not issue a
similar appointment memorandum to the petitioner and
only agreed to pay arrears from 01.01.1998 to
05.12.2004. This Court has dismissed the said contempt
petition being MCA No. 667 of 2018, which was
challenged by the petitioner by way of SLP (C) No.
11724 of 2019. The Apex Court vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
06.12.2021, directed the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner and continue him as a regular employee with
effect from 01.01.1998 and also directed payment of
salary in the applicable pay scale along with back wages.
Accordingly, the said contempt proceedings were
disposed of. Subsequently, the petitioner again
approached the Apex Court by filing Contempt Petition
(C) No. 543 of 2022. The said petition was disposed of by
the Apex Court vide order dated 05.03.2025, granting
liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate
proceedings permissible under law to redress his
grievance, if any. In view of the above, the present
petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a
direction to the respondent to pay the wages for the
period from 06.12.2004 till the date of issuance of the
appointment order i.e. 13.08.2022.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the primary ground on which
relief was denied to the petitioner was that he had not
resumed duty despite being called upon to do so.
However, learned advocate Mr. Acharya contends that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
when the Division Bench adjudicated the Letters Patent
Appeal (LPA), no such contention regarding non-
resumption of duty was raised by the respondent.
Learned advocate Mr.Acharya submits that false
averments were placed on record before the Apex Court
in SLP (C) No. 1065 of 2015, and based on such
submissions, the contempt petitions were disposed of
with the observation that the petitioner may avail of an
appropriate remedy as available under the law. Learned
advocate Mr.Acharya submits that in fact, when other
similarly situated canteen employees were offered
memorandums of appointment in June 2018, no such
offer was extended to the petitioner. As a result, the
petitioner did not resume duty since no formal
appointment was given to him. In that background
petitioner is entitled to the same benefits that have been
extended to other identically situated employees.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the petitioner and upon perusal of
the record, it clearly emerges that the award passed by
the learned Reference Court dated 12.12.2000, directing
the respondent to treat the petitioner as an employee of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
ONGC with effect from 01.01.1998, stood confirmed up
to the Apex Court. Despite the award having attained
finality, the same was not complied with by the
respondent. As a result, a contempt petition came to be
filed before this Court. In the said contempt
proceedings, this Court, vide its order dated 14.02.2019,
made the following observations:-
"In view of the fact that the order under contempt is substantially
complied with and applicant No.6 has not reported on duty, the
application is dismissed. Notice is discharged."
7. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Special
Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being
SLP (C) No. 11724 of 2019. In the course of the
proceedings, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that, without entering into much
dispute regarding the period during which the petitioner
had not actually worked, the petitioner may be granted
the pay scale from 01.01.1998 to 06.12.2004.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court was pleased to
direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and
continue him as a regular employee with effect from
01.01.1998, and to grant him the applicable pay scale
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
accordingly. It is also observed that with regard to the
back wages, petitioner may be allowed back wages as
payable to the regular employee as per the applicable
rules governing the service conditions from 01.01.1998
and until 05.12.2004.
8. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed on
13.08.2022 and has been paid the wages as directed by
the Apex Court in its earlier order. However, raising the
grievance that he is entitled to benefits for the period
from 05.12.2004 till 13.08.2022, a period not covered
under the earlier directions, the petitioner once again
approached the Apex Court by filing Contempt Petition
(C) No. 543 of 2022. The Apex Court, vide its order
dated 05.03.2025, passed the following order:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. We are satisfied that the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the
Court in SLP (C) No.11724 of 2019 has been substantially
complied with and the present contempt the proceedings deserve
Accordingly, to be closed. contempt proceedings are closed.
3. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
4. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to
file appropriate proceedings as may be permissible under the law
for the grievances, if any."
9. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9771/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in its
order dated 05.03.2025, granting liberty to the
petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for
redressal of his grievance, the present petition has been
filed seeking necessary directions. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the issue as to whether the
petitioner failed to resume duties despite being offered
employment, or whether, in fact, no such offer of
employment was made to the petitioner, is a disputed
question of fact. Such factual disputes require
adjudication through a proper evidentiary process,
where both parties are afforded an opportunity to lead
evidence and contest each other's claims. This Court, in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is not the appropriate forum to
adjudicate such disputed questions of fact. Hence the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
11. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
