Karnataka High Court
Kiran Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 May, 2024
Author: N. S. Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N. S. Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. S. SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.10258 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No. 5082 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN W.P. No.10258/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. KIRAN KUMAR
S/O AITHAPPA BANGERA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/AT D NO.1-179/3, SHIVANUGRAHA,
SHIVAGIRINAGARA ROAD,
HOSABETTU-575019.
2. PREETHI K
D/O KANDASAMY A, AGED 30 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by KIRAN R/AT 13/50, THIRUNAGAR,
KUMAR R VILLIVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600049.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. KANCHAN DESHWAL
D/O LATE SUBHASH SINGH,
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT VILLAGE HAKEEMPUR QAZI,
DISTRICT BIJINOR-246763.
4. SHRAVYA
D/O HONNAYYA SUVARNA,
AGED 33 YEARS,
R/AT 1-68/108, MSEZ COLONY,
KODIKERE KULAI, MANGALURU-575019.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
5. DABLU KUMAR SHAW
S/O RAJ KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS,
R/AT SHAW VILLAGE LEDAHARIA,
POST LEDAHARIA (VIA MUGMA),
JHARKAND-828204.
6. SHUBAM SETH
S/O RAMAKISHORE GUPTA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/AT 590/A, VERMA COLONY,
O/S BADA GAON GAE,
JHANSI, UTTAR PRADESH-284002.
7. SACHIN SEHRAWAT
S/O KALLU SINGH, AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT VILL ALINAGAR POST SIRSI,
DISTRICT MORADABAD-244301
UTTAR PRADESH.
8. NITHIN BENJAMINE BRAGGS
S/O HENRY BRAGGS,
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/AT SAMRUDHI, NO.4-230/1,
BRAGGS COMPOUND,
MARAKADA,MANGALURU-575029.
9. SHARATH
S/O PADMANABHA KOTIAN,
AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT 1-173,
SHARMILA NIVAS,HALENGADI POST,
MANGALURU-574146.
10 . LIONEL RAPHAEL D SOUZA
S/O CYRIL D SOUZA,
AGED 33 YEARS,
R/AT KARAMBAR HOUSE,
MALAVOOR VILLAGE,
BAJPE POS, MANGALURU-574142.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
11 . DILIP M
S/O ANANDA M,AGED 34 YEARS,
R/AT 14-108/15,NANDANA,
GREEN MEADOWS LAYOUT,
KULSHEKARA, MANGALORE-575012.
12 . AMITH KUMAR
S/O KISHORE KUMAR,AGED 34 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.1-S-28-2333/23,
NEAR NAGABANA,URVA,
MANGALURU-575006.
13 . KALAVALA B SHYAM KUMAR
S/O KALAVALABADARINARAYANA GUPTA,
AGED 53 YEARS,
R/A FLAT NO.1202,
MOHTISHAM ORCHARD APARTMENT,
ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, MANGALURU-575002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N.., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,
SHASHTRI BHAWAN, A WING, 5TH FLOOR,
DR RAJENDRA PRASAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-100001.
REPRESENTED BY IS JOINT SECRETARY.
2. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMIED
KUTTETHUR, SURATHKAL,
MANGALORE-575020
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING).
3. MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
SHASTRI BHAWAN,
DR RAJENDRA PRASAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-100001
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
4. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN,
5A, NELSON MADEL MARG,
VASANTH KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING).
5. MINISRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND
PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110079
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENERPRISES
BLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
7. MRPL MANAGEMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION,
1ST FLOOR, MRPL EMPLOYEES RECREATION
CLUB, KUTHETHOOR POST,
MANGALORE-575 030
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY,
MR.G.DAYANANDA PRABHU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAJASHEKAR.S. CGC FOR R-1, R-3, R-4, R-5 & R-6;
SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SMT SUKANYA BALIGA., ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SMT. SANGEETHA.M.S. ALONG WITH
SRI. PRASHANTH.B.K., ADVOCTE FOR PROPOSED
IMPLEADING R-7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTRE RECORDS RELATING TO AMALGAMATION OF
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
OMPL WITH THE R-2 INCLUDING THE HR INTERGRATION
PROGRESS OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE R-1 AND R-2 AND
QUASH THE ORDERS/ABSORPTION LETTERS DATED
18.01.2023 BEARING NOs.
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13217,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13608,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13615,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13542,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13592,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13581,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13582,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13195,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13186,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13187,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13190,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13191,
MRPL/HR/ES/AMALGAMATION/M/2023/13277 ISSUED BY THE
R-2 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-AH TO AH-12), ETC.
IN W.P. No.5082/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. OMPL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
"SOWPARNIKA", NEAR FRIENDS CIRCLE,
KATLA, SRATHKAL, MAGALORE 575 014.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY,
MR. PANKAJ TRIPATHI.
REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT, 1926.
2. PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O ANAND MOILY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT SHREE DURGA KRIPA
ODEYARABETTU, BAPPANDU
MULKI, MANGALORE 574154.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
3. KRISHNARAJ M
S/O JAYARAMA M
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT S/O JARAYAMA M
#1-70(1), NEAR B M TILES FACTORY,
MAROLI, MANGALORE, KULSHEKAR
DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA 575 005.
4. SIVAKUMAR, S/O SUBRAMANIAN A
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT 09A, N NO. 915
MEENATCHIPURAM STREET,
VETTAIKARAN PUDUR,
COIMBATORE 642 129.
5. AASAPU SAI SURYA PRAKASH
S/O AASAPUR SATYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT 1-39 ALLAKAVARI STREET,
UPPADA , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH 533448.
6. PRAJITH T P, S/O EV PADMANABHAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 309, BLOCK 4,
ASHOKA PARADISE, ASHOK NAGAR
HOIGEBAIL ROAD,
MANGALORE DHAKSHINA KANNADA 575 006.
7. KARTHICK P
S/O PANDIAN M, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT 27/H SECTOR 23,
RELIANCE GREENS, MOTIKHAVDI
JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT 361140.
8. PRASHANTKUMAR ISHWARYYAKALWADMATH
S/O ISHWARAYYA KALAWADMATH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT #6-160/40, "SHRAVANI"
KALBAVI ROAD, NEAR SAGAR RESIDENCY
MANGALORE 575 009.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
9. RAMESHA P R
S/O RAMAKRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT C/O SWARA , HOUSE, NO. 1-S-29/2438/6
GUTTU LANE, ASHOK NAGAR, MANGALORE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA 575 006.
10 . SARAVANAN T
S/O THANGAVEL, AGED 46 YEARS
R/A 1101 SAI PALACE APARTMENT, BALLAL BHAG,
MANNAGUDDA MAIN ROAD,
MANGALORE 575003.
11 . YOGEESHA A
S/O GOPALA KRISHNA NAVADA
AGED 44 YEARS
R/A SAMRUDDHI, DOOR NUMBER NOB 4
30/9, RAJ HOMES, BESIDE MCF HSG SOCIETY,
BEJAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA 575004.
12 . MANJEGOWDA H E
S/O ESHWAREGOWDA H V, AGED 36 YEARS
R/A 1-N-9-539-12, KRISHAV NIDHI,
URWA STORE, MANGALORE 575006.
13 . JEPIN JAYAN P, S/O JAYARAJAN P P
AGED 39 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO 106, AMETHYST APARTMENT,
MANGALORE 575004.
14 . AKANKSHA AGARWAL
D/O JAGDIP AGARWAL
AGED 28 YEARS
R/A RAJNAGAR EXTENSION
GHAZIABAD 201017.
15 . SUDHEESH KOODALI
S/O SUDHAKARAN K, AGED 35 YEARS
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
R/A RAMALAYAM, KOTTARAPARAMB,
PO. THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY KANNUR,
KERALA 670103.
16 . R C RAKESH
S/O C VIJAYARAGHAVAN
AGED 39 YEARS
R/A SOORYA NEAR GOVT HOSPITAL PAYYANUR
KANNUR KERALA 670307.
17 . PRAVEEN SHETTY
S/O LATE MAHABALA SHETTY
AGED FORTYNINE (49) YEARS
R/A PRAKRUTHI, 107, B2, ASHOKPARADISE,
ASHOKNAGAR, HOIGEBAIL,
URWA, MANGALORE 575006.
18 . PRADEEP KUMAR L
S/O U G LOKANATH, AGED 48 YEARS
R/A 6-65/7, BHAGYA JYOTHI, NEAR AYYA KERE,
IDDYA SURATHKAL, MANGALORE 575014.
19 . RENJITH C R, S/O V REGHUPATHY
AGED 38 YEARS
R/A CHACKALACKAL HOUSE,
THEVARA PO. ERNAKULAM, PIN 682013.
20 . RAMANAN C, S/O CHANDRAMOHAN
AGED 46 YEARS
R/A 1/685-4 NAMMALVAR ST, BHARATH NAGAR
KANNANENDAL, RESERVE LINE,
MADURAI 625014.
21 . VINCENT EMANUAL PATRAO
S/O VICTOR PATRAO, AGED 33 YEARS
R/A VINCENT PATRAO
2-41C, EMMANUEL VILLA, OPP RUSEMP,
THOKURU VILLAGE AND POST
VIA HALEYANGADI, PAKSHIKERE,
MANGALORE, KARNATAKA 574146.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
22 . NARENDRA NATH
S/O PARAS NATH, AGED 49 YEARS
R/A 401, DIARA RESIDENCY, ASHOK NAGAR,
MANGALORE 575006.
23 . RAMAKRISHNAN V G
S/O V GNANA DEV, AGED 53 YEARS
R/A OLD NO 68, NEW NO 8, RAMAR KOIL STREET,
TEACHERS COLONY, AMBATTUR,
TAMILNADU 600053.
24 . SUNAINA MAHESHWARI
D/O SATISH MAHESHWARI,
AGED 30 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO 302, ASHEESH APARTMENTS, KODIAL
GUTHU (E), 1ST CROSS, MANGALORE 575003.
25 . PUNDARIKAKSHA
S/O B RADHAKRISHNA KADAMBALITHAYA
AGED 57 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO 101, BLOCK A,D N 36014,
10TH D MAIN ROAD, LOHITH NAGAR, BHARATH
ASHRAYA, DEREBAIL, MANAGALORE 575006.
26 . JAYESH KUMAR
S/O G TARANATH SHET
AGED 52 YEARS
R/A JAYASAGAR, HILLSIDE ROAD,
AHOKNAGAR, MANGALORE 575006.
27 . RAMANAGOUDA JAMBAGI
S/O BALAPPA JAMBAGI
AGED 49 YEARS
R/A PAVANA 7-5/7 THARANJI GUTTU
10TH B CROSS KODIKAL MANGALORE 575006.
28 . KUNCHAM RAVI TEJA
S/ KUNCHAM SRINIVASA RAO
AGED 29 YEARS
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
R/A 74, 7TH FLOOR SAI PARADISE
APPARTMENT , KULUR FERRY ROAD,
CHILIMBI,. MANGALORE 575006.
29 . VISHAL WILFRED ABREO
S/ LATE VICTOR ABREO J S
AGED 31 YEARS
R/A 1-13/20, VISVIN VILLA, NEAR SNEHA
CATERERS, BEHIND GOVINDA DASA COLLEGE,
SURATHKAL, MANGALURU 575014.
30 . K MALAKONDA RAO
S/ K NARASIMHAM, AGED 50 YEARS
R/A FLASH 205, A BLOCK LAND LINKS
PERAL APARTMENT, NEAR PADMAVATI HOSPITAL,
SURATHKAL 575014.
31 . SWAROOP RAMDAS HEGDE
S/O RAMDAS HEGDE, AED 41 YEARS
R/A 301, PROVIDENCE ABODE 1, BEJAI NEW
ROAD, BEJAI MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA
KARNATAKA 575004.
32 . PRASHANTHA HEGDE M
S/O RAMANATHA HEGDE, AGED 50 YEARS
R/A 4-121CM, SRI ARYADURGA DAMODAR,
SRINIVAS NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
INDRALI UDUPI 576102.
33 . ANANTHA KRISHNAN VINAYAK SOMAN
S/O SOMAN KARUNAKARAN
AGED 39 YEARS
R/A DOOR NO 1-60(4-3),
FLAT N 403, SRI AMBAL PARADISE, BATEKERE,
PERMUDE,DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA 574509.
34 . TWINKLE AGARWAL
D/O ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
AGED 26 YEARS
R/A MOHALLA BUCHAHERA, NEAR
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
RAMBHAWAN, WARD NO 24, KOTPUTLI,
JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 303108.
35 . GAURAV MEENA
S/O SHANKAR LAL MEENA
AGED 27 YEARS
R/A 7/85 KK COLONY BASNI PHASE 1
JODHPUR RAJASTHAN 342005.
36 . AMITH A KAMATH
S/O ACHUTHA KAMATH
AGED 33 YEARS
R/A 8-98, "SRIGANESH", 3RD CROSS
ESHWAR NAGAR, MILK DAIRY ROAD,
MANIPAL 576104.
37 . SUMIT KUMAR, S/O BRIJESH KUMAR
AGED 34 YEARS
R/A FLAT 504 B BLOCK, NARMADA APT.,
KOTTARA, MANGALORE 575006.
38 . RAMAKANTHA PRABHU H
S/O VISHWANATH PRABHU H
AED 58 YEARS
R/A A406 PP SHARADA VIDYALAYA
KODIALBAIL MANALORE 575003.
39 . ASHOK N PATIL
S/O NEELAKANTHARO
AGED 51 YEARS
R/A SNEHA PARADISE, BEHIND KAVOOR JUNIOR
COLLEGE, GANDHI NAGAR,
KAVOOR, MANGALORE 575015.
40 . ANISH ANAND
S/O SHRI ANIRUDDH PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A LFT/237, NEAR SANTOSHI MANDIR
BHAGA NUMBER 2, P.O BHAGA, DHANBAD,
JHARKAND-828301.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
41 . PRASAD A V
S/O VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A 3/230A, 3RD BLOCK,
NEAR FRIENDS CIRCLE, KATIPALLA
MANGALORE-575030.
42 . MAMIDWAR GAJANAN SHANAKRRAO
S/O SHANKARRAO MAMIDWAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A DOOR 6-156-94, FLAT A-201
NARMADA APARTMENT, SRI KURU AMBA
TEMPLE ROAD, KOTTARA
MANGALURU-575006.
43 . PANKAJ TRIPATHI
S/O SHIV PRAKASH TRIPATHI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/A BSNL BTS TOWER, KARAHIYA
HAMIRPUR, KARAHIYA
UTTAR PRADESH-210504.
44 . PRADEEP S HEBSUR
S/O SHIVAPPA HEBSUR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A 794 NEAR SDM DOCTORS QUARTERS
VANASIRINAGAR SATTUR NAVALUR DHARWAD
KARNATAKA-580009.
45 . ASHWINI, D/O HARISH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A DOOR NO.2-90, RAM POOJARY HOUSE
KOORIKATTA PANAMBUR
MEENAKALIYA POST
MANGALORE-575010.
46 . VIJENDRA BHAT P
S/O P JAGANANTH BHAT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
R/A A2, UJWALA APARTMENTS, KADIR ROAD
MANGALORE-575002.
47 . VENKANNA M
S/O VENAKTARAMANA M
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/A 30TH WARD, AMBEDAKR NAGAR, T B DAM
HOSPET, BELLARY-583225.
48 . PIDAPARTHI PRAKASH CHAINULU
S/O PSN MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A 706, ANANYA APARTMENTS
KODIALBAIL WEST ROAD
MANGALORE-575003.
49 . KARTHIK REDDY B M
S/O MOHAN KUMAR B P
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A 223, SANTRUPTHI, 8TH CROSS ROAD
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, SARASWATI
VIDYANIKETAN ROAD,BANGARPET
KOLAR DISTRICT -563114.
50 . GAURAV KATIYAR
S/O ARUN KUMAR KATIYAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A D-1/22, JANAKPURI
NEWDELHI-110058.
51 . SHAFEEQ K I
S/O K H ISMAIL SHERIFF
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A KALASSERY PARAMBIL(H)
OPPOSITE CIVIL LANE, P O AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR, KERALA-680003.
52 . AJAY BAHADUR M SHELKE
S/O MADHUSUDAN S SHELKE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO.503, DEEPA PARK
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
MARTIN PAIS ROAD, LADYHILL
OPP KARAVALI EXHIBITION GROUND
MANGALORE-575006
53 . BALLARAGAVENDRAN S
S/O SWAMINATHAN R
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A H-122, AVALAPALLI HUDCO
PHASE 6, BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR-635109.
54 . GAURAV
S/O SHIVDEO SINGH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO.M606,
MARS AND VENUS APARTMENT, CHILIMBI
MANGALORE-575006.
55 . MADHUKARA S
S/O VENKATARAMANA ACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. 17-64/A1 SHREE KATEEL
POONJA ROAD, ARANTHABETTU,
SURTHKAL-575 025.
56 . MANIKANTAN N
S/O NARASIMHAN M
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 303, MARIAN SOLACE,
MANGALORE-575006..
57 . D VIKRAM KAMAT
S/O DASHARATHA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT D VIKRAM KAMATH S/O SASHARATHA,
NANDAGOKULA, H NO. 3-127/27, NEAR ABHIMAN
GREEN LAWNS, THODLAGUDDE,
CROSS ROAD, KUNJATHA BAIL POST,
GANDHINAGAR, KAVOOR-575015.
58 . ASHWATH S
S/O UPENDRA ACHAR K
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT D NO. 3-23/29, BLOK I BHARTI GREENS APT,
MANGALORE-575006.
59 . R SURESH
S/O S RAJASEKARAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT 12 E, SUTH MADA STREET,
THIRUVOTRIYUR, CHENNAI-600019.
60 . VINEETH G
S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI P N
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.102, MARIAN ASPRE
KOTTARA KAPKAD CROSS ROAD, DADLKKAD,
MANGALORE-575006.
61 . ASHITH MADHU M P
S/O MADHUSOODANAN M P
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT 413/1 HOC COLONY, AT-HOC COLONY,
CHAMBHARLI, MOHOPADA KHALAPUR RAIGARH,
MAHARASHTRA-410222.
62 . MANJUNATHA
S/O KARIBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 003 LADYHLL RESIDENCCY,
APARTMENT CHILIMBI, OPPOSITE MORE SUPER MARKET
MANGALORE ASHOKNAGAR (MR),
DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA-575006.
63 . RITWIK NAG
S/O RAMEN NAG ,
AGED 39 YEARS,
R/AT-19 JOGENDRA GARDENS SOUTH HALTU,
KOLKATA-700078.
64 . GOPINATH V
S/O K C VIJAYARAHAVAN,
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT BLOCK-01-G06, ASHOKA PARADISE,
ASHOK NAGAR, HOIGEBAIL,
MANGALORE-575006.
65 . VISHNU PRASAD K
S/O RAJU K, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT AMRUTHA PADHAM, MADONTHIL POYIL,
PO KIZHAKKUMMURI, KAKKODI,
KOZHIKODE-673611.
66 . HARIKRISHNAN M
S/O MANOHARA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT KOONIKKATTUPARAMBIL,IRUMPANAM,
CHITHRAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682309.
67 . VIRENDRA KUMAR TYAG
S/O RAJVEER SINGH TYAGI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT 604, FELICITY-2 NEW BEJAI
ROAD,MANGALORE-575004.
68 . RAYAN PASANNA
S/O ALIAS PASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT 2-30, ARATE HOSADU UDUPI,
KARNATKA-576247.
69 . SRIKANTH RAI
S/OSHRDHAR RAI B
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 5-217, SHRIKANTHA ADARSH NAGAR,
KAIKAMBA KINNIKAMBLA POST,
MANGALORE DAKSHNA KANNADA-574151.
70 . PRAJAPATI KAMLESH JIVANLAL
S/O JVANLAL PRAJAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT 416 NANDADEEP APARTMENT, OPP,
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
MODERN RICE MILL, URWA
MANGALORE-575006.
71 . DINESH KUMAR
S/O SHREEDHARA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT 11-50/10 SHREEKRISHNADHAMA HOUSE,
ULLANJE, MENNABETTU VILLAGE, KINNGOL,
DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA-574150.
72 . LEKKALA RAMESH
S/O LEKKALA BANGARU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 5828-28/6, GANDHI NAGAR, WARD-67,
BUTCHIRAJPALEM, GOPALAPATNAM (RURAL),
VISAKSHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH -530027.
73 . DEERAJA R SHETTY
S/O SUDHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/T MAURISHKA PARK A BLOCK FLAT NO. 204,
KODAILBAIL POST, MANGALORE -575 003.
74 . KEHSAVA PATALI
S/O LATE APPU PATALI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT DO NO. 365/43 YASHAS HOUSE,
IST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, LOHITH NAGAR,
DEREBAL, ASHOKNAGAR, POST, MANGALORE,
KARNATAKA-575 006.
75 . VIDYA B MALLYA
D/O LT SRINIVASA MALLYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 3-28-2259,"SHOBHA KRISHNA" KADRI,
KAMBLA ROAD, OPP VIJAYA CLINIC,
BIJAI POST, MANGALORE-575004.
76 . PARESHKUMAR KODARBHAI PRAJAPATI
S/O KODARBHA PRAJAPATI,
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. 7/70-44.
5TH B CROSS KODICAL MANGALORE-575006.
77 . NITHIN KUMAR
S/O SANJEEVA KOTTARY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT 1-A-04/1 RAJEE MSEZ COLONY,
62ND THOKUR, JOKATTE POST,
MANGALORE-575011.
78 . SUDHIRA
S/O MAHAVEER JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT ANATHASHREE NELKAR POST MANGALORE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574107.
79 . CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O NAGAPPA M KOTIAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT 2--128/1 (21) SAMARPAN,
THAVAREKOLA, NEAR PAWAN MARBLE,
HOSABETTU, MANGALORE-575019.
80 . RAJESH JOSEPH D COSTA
S/O GERALD D COSTA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT 1-184, CHRISTELLE PALACE KARMBAR,
NEAR NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL MARAVOOR,
KENJAR, MANGALORE-575142.
81 . STEEVAN PINTO
S/O ALPHONSE PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT KUDEL HOUSE, BADAGA YEKKAR VILLAGE,
KATEEL POST, MANGALORE-574148.
82 . JAIDEEP GHOSH
S/O LT PULIN KR GH
AGED 59 YEARS
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
R/AT 303, SAI NIVAS 1
HAT HILL, MANGALORE 575006.
83 . SAURABH BHARTIYA
S/O SAJAN KUAMR BHARTIYA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/A 902, BHANDARY HEIGHTS
KOTTARA, CHOWKI
MANGALORE 575006.
84 . SHRIKANT KATTI
S/O RAGHAVENDRA KATTI
AGED 39 YEARS
R/AT 8-8/2(23), VASANT NILAY
SURATHKAL 575014.
85 . GUNAPALA SHETTY
S/O ANANDA SHETTY
AGED 39 YEARS
R/A SHREE RAKSHA HOUSE, BEHIND
MAHALAXMI STEELS, DWARAKA NAGAR,
KULAI, MANGALORE - 575019.
86 . ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
S/O AJAY BAHADUR SINGH
AGED 37 YEARS
R/AT FLAT-104,BLOCK-3,
ASHOKA PARADISE
APPARTMENT, ASHOK NAGAR,
HOIGEBAIL ROAD,
MANGALORE 575006.
87 . MANISH KUMAR SINGH
S/O LATE RAMA SHANKAR SINGH
AGED 41 YEARS
R/A MANISH KUMAR SINGH
S/O LATE RAMA SHANKAR SINGH
501, BHARATHI WES WIND APARTMENT DOMINIC
CHURCH RD ASHOKNAGAR,
MANGALORE, 575006.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
88 . BALACHANDRAN G.
S/O GANAPATHI R, AGED 35 YEARS
R/A NO 33, EAST STREET, PERALAM POST,
NANNILAM TK, TIRUVARUR DT,
TAMILNADU - 609405.
89 . SUDHIR SHETTY B
S/O BHUJANGA SHETTY M
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/A SUDHIR SHETTY B DOOR NO 1-13C MOHAN
NILAYA NEAR JAIN BASADI KOLKEBAIL
VAMANJOOR POST 575028.
90 . PRIYA DSOUZA
D/O JOSSY DSOUZA
AGED 34 YEARS
R/A SITE NO 692, 3RD BLOCK,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575030.
91 . MAHESHA B
S/O B SHIVA PRASAD
AGED 26 YEARS
R/A 5-71, BALANTHIMUGARU HOUSE, POST
MOODMABAILU, PUNACHA VILLAGE, BANTWAL
TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA, 575128.
92 . ANUP S KUMAR
S/O SHIVAPPA K POOJARY
AGED 28 YEARS
R/A SHIVA GANGA, H. NO 1-10A, DEVINAGAR
IIND MAIN,PARKALA,
UDUPI DISTRICT, 576107.
93 . S NAGESH HEGDE
S/O S MADHAVA HEGDE
AGED 49 YEARS
R/A 01-47-1, SHIVARAMA KARANTH
ROAD, PARAMPALLI, SALIGRAMA POST,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576225.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
94 . HAREESHA SHETTY
S/O BHOJA SHETTY
AGED 44 YEARS
R/A G1, VIJAYA ENCLAVE,
MANNAGUDDA, OPPOSITE GOVT
SCHOOL, MANGALORE 575003.
95 . VIVEK PRABHU B
S/O B PANDURANGA PRABHU
AGED 40 YEARS
R/A NO.7-72(1), INNA CROSS
ROAD, MUNDKUR, KARKALA, UDUPI 576121.
96 . VASUDEV PRABHU G
S/O G VENKATESH PRABHU
AGED 39 YEARS
R/A NO.6-352, GURUPRASAD NILAYA, NEAR
MADHAVA SOUDHA, MULUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
GURUPURA-574145.
97 . RAHUL PARMAR
S/O SHANTILAL PARMAR
AGED 30 YEARS
R/A SHALOM VILLA, B 6TH CROSS ROAD,
KODICAL MANGALORE, KARNATAKA 575006.
98 . SANJEEV KUMAR
S/O UPENDRA KUMAR
AGED 37 YEARS
R/A BILL- BASDEVPUR CHAPUTA, P.O-RAJAULI,
DISTRICT - VAISHALI, BIHAR - 844101.
99 . DATLA KRISHNA NARASIMHA VARMA
S/O DATLA V S S N VARMA
AGED 28 YEARS
R/A DOOR- 2-43-1, SECTOR-
11, M.V.P.DOUBLE ROAD, NEAR A.S RAJA COLLEGE
VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDRA PRADESH 530017.
100 . GOPISETTI SRAVANKUMAR
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
S/O LATE GOPISETTI SURIBABU
AGED 28 YEARS
R/A S/O GOPISETTI SURIBABU,1-31,CHAKALI
PETA, NEAR CHERUVU,UNDI
MANDLM, VANDRUM, WEST GODAVARI,
ANDHRAPRADESH- 534199.
101 . DEBANJAN DEY
S/O NIRMAL KUMAR DEY
AGED 33 YEARS
R/A VILL BASUDEVPUR HPL LINK ROAD
HALDIA PURBA MEDINIPUR-721602.
102 . D MURALITHARAN
S/O M DURAIRAJ, AGED 28 YEARS
R/A B1 32,FACT TOWNSHIP,
UDYOGAMANDAL PO, ERNAKULAM
KERALA-683501.
103 . M. RAMACHANDRAN
S/O P. MANICKAM
AGED 40 YEARS
R/A 128, RAJA VEEDHI,
KOVILMATHIMANGALAM, THEN MATHI
MANGALAM, KALASAPAKKAM TALUK,
TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT-606908.
104 . HARISH RAO
S/O LATE Y RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGD 49 YEARS
R/A ANANDA PRASAD YEKKAR POST AND
VILLAGE,1-67/1, MANGALORE, 574509 AND
305 A BLOCK, MOURISHKA PARK, PVS,
MANGALORE 575003.
105 . RAVIKANT
S/O ASHISH KUMAR
AGED 27 YEARS
R/A LAXMI DHARM KANTA GALI KAMAL
NAGAR KUKRA BLOCK MUZAFFARNAGAR
251001 UTTAR PRADESH.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
106 . PRAJWAL MALLI
S/O LATE PRABHAKAR MALLI
AGED 29 YEARS
R/A D B66/1, MSEZ COLONY, THOKUR 62,
JOKATTE POST VIA BAIKAMPADY
MANGALORE-575011.
107 . RAVIPRASAD B V
S/O VENKATA SUBRAYA
AGED 36 YEARS
R/A 2-25/7(1), SANTHRUPTHI NILAYA, SANNA
NAGARA, KULAI POST, MANGALORE-575019.
108 . ROYDEN RAHUL SUARES
S/O RONALD FRANCIS SUARES
AGED 29 YEARS
R/A G114 MRPL COLONY
MANGALORE 575030.
109 . MURUGAN G
S/O GOVINDARAJU H, AGED 38 YEARS
R/A NO. 168, PERUMAL DOVIL STREET,
MADHURAMPATTU, TIRUVANNAMALAI,
TAMILNADU-606804.
110 . PRABHAT SINGH
S/O JANKI PRASAD, AGED 32 YEARS
R/A NEAR KISAN SEVA ASHRAM HOME
NO.599, PUKHRAYAN KANPUR-208001.
111 . MALLADI DASARADHI SUBRAMANYAM
S/O M HARI PRASAD SARMA
AGED 30 YEARS
R/A D NO 30-17-8, PATIBANDLA RESIDENCY,
VARANASI VARI STREET, SEETHARAMPURAM,
VIJAYAWADA 520002.
112 . VINEET BHARDWAJ
S/O TOTARAM BHARDWAJ
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
AGED 27 YEARS
R/A 38, SRI RAM VATIKA, GHOGAI, PASCHIM
PURI CHOWKI, SIKANDRA, AGRA-223007.
113 . DILKHUSH JAIN
S/O MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN
AGED 30 YEARS
R/A OPP TO AGRAWAL DHARMSHALA,
MADHORAJPURA, JAIPUR 303006.
114 . SHYAMANTH SHETTY K
S/O T. SHARATCHANDRA SHETTY
AGED 36 YEARS
R/A 2-130/5(1), SANTRPTHI,
FISHERIES ROAD, HOSABETTU,
MANGALORE-575019.
115 . SHYAMAL BIBAR
S/O MADHU SUDAN BIBAR,
AGED 40 YEARS 11 MONTHS,
R/A S/O MADHU SUDAN, 4/C/1
DUTTAPARA LANE, UTTARPARA KOTRUNG M, HOOGHLY,
BHADRAKALI, WEST BENGAL 712232.
116 . ATUL KUMAR
S/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD,
AGED 33 YEARS,
R/A C/O SHIV KUMAR LAL, MAHBIR CHOWK, AGRAWAL
MUHALLA, LOHARDAGA, JHARKAHAN 835302.
117 . RAJENDRA KRISHNA RAO D
S/O LATE D K MADHAVA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS,
R/A C 805, MAURISHKA PARK, OPP SHARADA
VIDYALAYA, KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE 575003.
118 . RAM NIWAS MOUN
S/O LATE SH MEWA SINGH, AGED 51 YEARS,
R/A H NO 1759, SECTOR 2, BAHADURGARH, DIST
JHAJJAR, HARYANA 124507.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
119 . VINODA K V
D/O VASUDEVA ACHAR K,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/A VINODA K V, OD 01, SHRI SAMUDHYATHA,
R AND R COLONY, KULAI, SURATHKAL 575019.
120 . VINOD VICTOR PATRAO
S/O MARCEL PATRO, AGED 39 YEARS,
R/A AVE MARIA, MSEZ R AND R COLONY KODIKERE,
KULAI 575012.
121 . PRAMOD K
S/O K KUNHUTTY, AGE 51 YEARS,
R/A 161 A PUSHPAK TOWNSHIP, OPP RELIANCE
BHAWAN, UNDERA, KOYLI, VADODARA 391330.
122 . VENKATA SAI RAMBABU P
S/O P MANOHARA ROA, AGED 34 YEARS,
R/A NO 23-241, WARD NO 1258, NARASANNAPET,
SRIKAKULAM, ANDRAPRADESH 532421.
123 . SHIVAPRASAD
S/O YADAVA, AGED 42 YEARS,
R/A 1-96/1, NEAR DODDAMANE, BANGRA KULUR,
MANGALORE 13.
124 . VIGNESH S
S/O SAMIKKANNU, AGED 30 YEARS,
R/A 4/425, 1ST CROSS AMMAN NAGAR,
THIRUVERUMBUR, ELLAKUDY, TAMILNADU 620019.
125 . ANSHUL BASLAS
S/O SARVESH BASLAS, AGED 26 YEARS,
R/A KALYAN SAGAR GALLI, BAH, AGRA 223007.
126 . RISHU KUMAR GIRL
S/O MANOJ KUMAR GIRI, AGED 30 YEARS,
R/A CHAKPAHAR, TAJPUR, BIHAR 848122.
127 . MUKESH KUMAR
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
S/O SANJAY KUMAR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/A 10J POLICE COLONY, MODEL TOWN 2,
DELHI 110009.
128 . KUDIDHI SHIVA KUMAR
S/O RAJAIAH,
AGED 33 YEARS,
R/A 1-1-750/1/1, GANDHI NAGAR, NEW BAKARAM,
HYDERABAD 500080.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,
SHASHTRI BHAWAN, A WING, 5TH FLOOR,
DR RAJENDRA PRASAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-100001.
REPRESENTED BY IS JOINT SECRETARY.
2. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMIED
KUTTETHUR, SURATHKAL,
MANGALORE-575020
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING).
3. MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
SHASTRI BHAWAN,
DR RAJENDRA PRASAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-100001
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
4. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN,
5A, NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANTH KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING).
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
5. MINISRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND
PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110079
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
(GOVERNTMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
6. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENERPRISES
BLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
7. MRPL MANAGEMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION,
1ST FLOOR, MRPL EMPLOYEES RECREATION
CLUB, KUTHETHOOR POST, MANGALORE-575 030
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
MR.G.DAYANANDA PRABHU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG ALONG WITH
SMT.ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC FOR R-1, R-3, R-5 & R-6;
SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SMT SUKANYA BALIGA., ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SMT. SANGEETHA.M.S. ALONG WITH
SRI. PRASHANTH.B.K., ADVOCTE FOR PROPOSED
IMPLEADING R-7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO AMALGAMATION OF OMPL
WITH THE R-2 INCLUDING THE HR INTEGRATION PROCESS OF
THE PETITIONERS FROM THE R-1 AND R-2 AND QUASH THE
ORDERS/ABSORPTION LETTER DATED 18.01.2023 ISSUED BY
THE R-2 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-AH TO AH-125), ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
WP No. 10258 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5082 of 2023
ORDER
1. These petitions are by the Officers' Association of the
ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd ("the OMPL") and all
the officers (members of the Association) who are
aggrieved by the orders of absorption passed in their
favour while being absorbed into the Mangalore Refinery
and Petrochemicals Limited ("the MRPL"), and also by the
Circular dated 15.03.2022 by which a new induction Grade
"E2" in the Management Cadre was created.
2. They are also seeking a mandamus to direct
respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 to re-do the HR integration
process of the petitioners and protect the grade, pay,
seniority and other service conditions in compliance with
Clause 28 of the amalgamation order, which has been
passed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 14.04.2022.
Alternatively, they are also seeking for a direction to
respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 to form a committee of high
level ranking officers along with the representatives of the
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
Association to re-do the HR integration process in
compliance with Clause 28.
3. The facts leading to the filing of these petitions are
as follows:
(a) In the year 1998, the MRPL was incorporated.
Thereafter, in the year 2006, Mangalore Petrochemicals
i.e., MPL was incorporated with the ONGC holding 46%
stake, the MRPL - 3% and financial institutions holding
51% shares.
(b) In the year 2007, the name of MPL was changed to
the ONGC Mangalore Petro-chemicals Limited ("the
OMPL").
(c) In the year 2008, the organisational structure,
manning, recruitment procedure and cost-to-company
("CTC") were approved by the Chairman, and the Board
also approved the CTC band for executives and non-
executives.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
(d) In February 2015, the Board of the OMPL opined that
it would be better if it was integrated with the MRPL and
suggested that a committee be formed in that regard.
(e) The MRPL acquired 51% of the shares of the OMPL
and, thus, OMPL became its subsidiary. According to
MRPL, as a consequence, the OMPL became a Central
Public Sector Enterprise ("CPSE"), and, as a further
consequence, it was required to adopt Department of
Public Enterprises ("DPE") Guidelines.
(f) On 29.07.2015, the MRPL submitted a proposal for a
scheme of amalgamation to the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs--respondent No.1 ("the MoCA") which had been
conferred with the powers to pass orders on amalgamation
in respect of the Government companies under the
provisions of the Companies Act.
(g) Subsequently, on 04.09.2015, both MRPL and OMPL
submitted an application for amalgamation. On this
application being filed, the MoCA sought a No-Objection
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
Certificate (NOC) from both MRPL and OMPL. The MRPL, in
turn, sought an NOC from the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas for the amalgamation on 08.07.2016 and on
30.10.2016, the Board of ONGC accorded its consent for
the amalgamation.
(h) As the matter stood thus, on 27.12.2016, the MoCA
addressed a communication to MRPL and OMPL that the
application submitted by both was incomplete and could
not be kept pending indefinitely, and that it was upon
them to file a fresh application.
(i) On 12.03.2018, the MRPL sought an NOC for
amalgamation to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas ("the MoPNG") and the MoPNG issued a NOC for the
amalgamation on 18.04.2018.
(j) On 10.06.2021,
(k) in its 86th Board Meeting and the MRPL in its 237th
Board meeting, approved the scheme of amalgamation,
and a joint confirmation report was submitted by them
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
with respect to the proposed scheme of amalgamation to
the MoCA on 03.12.2021.
(l) During the pendency of said application, a
representation was given by the Officers' Association of
OMPL raising certain issues and, thereafter, an affidavit
was also filed by an Office bearer in this regard.
(m) On 15.03.2022, the Managing Director of the OMPL
addressed a letter to the Officers' Association stating that
the grievances regarding pay alignment needed a
systematic approach and should be in accordance with the
DPE guidelines. He assured the Officers Association that
their mapped seniority within the MRPL would be
maintained and also stated that a high-level committee
was being formed in this regard and he therefore
requested the Association to withdraw the affidavit that it
had filed before the MoCA opposing the amalgamation.
(n) On the same day, i.e., on 15.03.2022, a Circular was
issued by the MRPL, whereby it introduced a new
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
Induction Grade called "E2" in the Management Grade,
which was for the designation of the Assistant Executive /
Assistant Engineer drawing a pay-scale of Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.1,60,000/-.
(o) On 21.03.2022, the office bearer, Sri.Katiyar, filed an
affidavit stating that he was withdrawing the
representation given by him on behalf of the Association,
stating that they were assured that their grievances would
be redressed.
(p) On 31.03.2022, a final hearing to confirm the Scheme
of amalgamation was held by the MoCA.
(q) After the affidavit of Mr.Katiyar representing the OMPL
Officers' Association was withdrawn, a representation was
given by the MRPL Management Officers' Association
through an e-mail raising seven issues.
(r) The MoCA i.e., the competent authority to pass the
final order of amalgamation as contemplated under
Section 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 ("the Act"),
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
passed a final order on 14.04.2022 for sanctioning the
scheme and accorded its approval to the scheme of
amalgamation which was annexed to its final order.
(s) Paragraph 28 of the final order passed by the MoCA
on 14.04.2022 would be relevant for the purpose of the
questions involved in this case, and the same reads as
under:
"28. With reference to clause 3.2(vii) (Part-III) of the
scheme, upon the Scheme becoming effective, all employees
of the Transferor Company as on the appointed date shall be
deemed to be the employees of the Transferee Company
without any breach or interruption of service, on terms and
conditions not less favourable than those applicable to them
as on appointed date."
(t) It may be pertinent to state here that the Scheme of
amalgamation also contained a clause in relation to service
conditions of the employees, which was stipulated in
paragraph 3.2(vii) and, which reads as follows:
"3.2 ******
(vii) all employees, who are on the payrolls of the
Transferor Company shall become, without any
interruption of service as a result of this amalgamation
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
and transfer, employees of the Transferee Company,
by normalizing the employment grade, structure and
pay scale and such other terms and conditions of
employment of such employees of the Transferor
Company in accordance with the policies of the
Transferee Company and the provisions of relevant
guidelines, rules and regulations prescribed in this
regard by the Department of Public Enterprises and
other relevant regulatory authorities in regard to
Central Public Sector Enterprises, such as the
Transferee Company. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Scheme, the aforesaid
normalization of employment grade, structure and pay
scale and such other terms and conditions of
employment of such employees of the Transferor
Company shall take effect from the Effective Date and
not the Appointed Date.
With regard to provident fund, employee state
insurance contribution, gratuity fund, superannuation
fund, staff welfare scheme or any other special scheme
or benefits created or existing for the benefit of the
employees of the Transferor Company, if any, upon
this Scheme becoming effective, the Transferee
Company shall stand substituted for the Transferor
Company for all purposes whatsoever, including but
not limited to those relating to the obligation to make
contributions to such funds and schemes in accordance
with the provisions of such funds and schemes in the
respective trust deeds or other documents. The
existing provident fund, employee state insurance
contribution, gratuity fund, superannuation fund, staff
welfare scheme and any other special scheme or
benefits created by the Transferor Company for its
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
employees shall be continued, subject to the policies of
the Transferee Company and the provisions of relevant
guidelines, rules and regulations prescribed in this
regard by the Department of Public Enterprises and
other relevant regulatory authorities in regard to
Central Public Sector Enterprises, on the same terns
and conditions or be transferred to the existing
provident fund, employee state insurance contribution,
gratuity fund, superannuation fund, staff welfare
scheme, etc., being maintained by the Transferee
Company or as may be created by the Transferee
Company for such purpose.
Upon this Scheme becoming effective, the Transferor
Company will transfer/handover to the Transferee
Company, copies of employment information, including
but not limited to, personnel files(including hiring
documents, existing employment contracts, and
documents reflecting changes in an employee's
position, compensation, or benefits, payroll records,
medical documents (including documents relating to
past or ongoing leaves of absence, on the job injuries
or illness, or fitness for work examinations),
disciplinary records, supervisory files relating to its and
all forms, notifications, orders and contribution/identity
cards issued by the concerned authorities relating to
benefits transferred pursuant to this sub-clause.
The Transferee Company undertakes to continue to
abide by any agreement(s)/settlement(s) if entered
into, with any labour unions/employees by Transferor
Company. The Transferee Company agrees that for the
purpose of payment of any retrenchment
compensation, gratuity and other terminal benefits,
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
the past services of such permanent employees, if any,
with Transferor Company, as the case may be, shall
also be taken into account, and agrees and undertakes
to pay the same as and when payable."
(u) This final order of amalgamation declared that the
Scheme shall be binding on the shareholders and stated as
follows:
"31. Now, therefore, the sanction of the Central
Government is hereby accorded to the Scheme of
Amalgamation ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited
(OMPL) (Transferor Company) with Mangalore Refinery and
Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL) (Transferee Company) under
Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Scheme
shall be binding on the shareholders and creditors of the
transferor Company and transferee Company and all
concerned with effect from 01.04.2021, being the appointed
date for coming into force of the said scheme."
(v) About a week thereafter, on 21.04.2022, a Company
application was filed before the MoCA seeking
corrections/modifications of paragraph 28 of the final
order of confirmation, in the following terms:
"6. It is respectful submission of the Petitioners that an
inadvertent error has crept into the Order at Paragraph 28.
Paragraph 28 of the Order reads as under:
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
"28. With reference to clause 3.2.(vii) (Part-
III) of the scheme upon the Scheme
becoming effective, all employees of the
transferor Company as on the appointed
date shall be deemed to be the
employees of the transferee Company
without any breach or interruption of
service on terms and conditions not less
favourable than those applicable to them
as an appointed date"
7. It is submitted that Clause 3.2(viii) of Part III of the
Scheme provides inter alia, that "Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in this Scheme, the aforesaid
normalization of employment grade structure and pay scale
and such other terms and conditions of employment of such
employees o the Transferor Company shall take effect from
the Effective Date and not the Appointed Date." This is
provided from line no.9 of Clause 3.2.(vii) and Part III of the
Scheme. A copy of the Scheme is annexed hereto and marked
as ANNEXURE-"B"
8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts, it is
respectfully submitted that paragraph 28 of the Order be
kindly considered for correction/rectification to read as under:
"28. With reference to clause 3.2.(vii) (Part-
III) of the scheme upon the Scheme
becoming effective, all employees of the
transferor Company as on the effective
date shall be deemed to be the
employees of the Transferee Company
without any breach or interruption of
service, on terms and conditions not less
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
favourable than those applicable to them
prior to effective date."
(w) In effect, by said application, as against the
mentioning of the term "appointed date" in paragraph 28,
a correction was sought to substitute the said term with
the term "the effective date".
(x) In response to the said application, MoCA addressed a
communication in the following terms:
"To,
1] M/s ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited,
Mangalore Special Economic Zone,
Permude, Mangalore-574 509.
2] M/S Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals
Limited
Mudapadav, Kuthethur, P.O.Via Katipalla,
Mangalore-575 030.
Subject: Application under Section 230-232 of the Companies
Act, 2013 for the approval of Scheme of Amalgamation
between ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited (Transferor
Company) and Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
(Transferee Company).
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your application dated
20.04.2022 received in the ministry on 05.05.2022 and
requesting you to clarify as to why the petitioner companies
are seeking to replace the word "appointed date" mentioned
at para 28 of the order dated 14.04.2022 to "effective date"
although as per para 1.3.3 Part-I of the scheme, the
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
"appointed date means 1 April 2021 being the date with
effect from which this scheme, post effectiveness of
this Scheme, be operative, i.e., the date with effect
from which the Transferor Company shall be deemed to
have been amalgamated and merged into and with the
Transferee Company." Hence, please clarify on the same.
2. Further, the demand draft of Rs.40,000/- is returned
herewith to you in original as you have already deposited the
requisite fee at the time of filing of application/petition to this
ministry."
(y) A reading of said communication would indicate that
the application for substitution of the appointed date with
the effective date was not granted.
4. The facts narrated above would indicate that the
process of amalgamation which started in the year 2015
was ultimately concluded in the year 2022 on the final
order being passed by the MoCA, as a result of which,
OMPL stood dissolved and stood amalgamated with the
MRPL with a specific clause defining the effect of
amalgamation on the employees as narrated above.
5. It may also be pertinent to state here that in the
background, there was also a parallel process underway
for integrating the employees of MRPL and OMPL.
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
6. As stated above, the Board of OMPL had accorded its
approval to the CTC band for executives and non-
executives in the year 2013.
7. On 11.10.2018, the Board of OMPL in its 70th
meeting took up the issue of alignment of pay-scales and
allowances to executives and non-executives per the DPE
guidelines.
8. It would be useful to extract the manner in which the
Board considered this alignment recorded in the minutes
of the Board meeting, which is as follows:
"EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE 70TH MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ONGC MANGALORE
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER
11, 2018 AT BOARD ROOM, OIL AND NATURAL GAS
CORPORATION LIMITED, 5TH FLOOR, DEENDAYAL URJA
BHAWAN, 5, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW
DELHI-110 070.
70.08Alignment of pay scale and allowances to
Executives and Non-Executives as per DPE Guidelines
1. CEO OMPL explained to the Board that the salaries of
executives and non-executives were not revised since
inception and that the current salaries in the industry were
higher than the salaries drawn by OMPL employees at
present.
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
2. Due to the disparity in salaries, attrition rate amongst the
executives was abnormally high. At the induction level, 30%
officers have already resigned who had been recruited based
on the GATE score due to non-fulfillment of their emoluments
aspirations w.r.t. industry standards.
3. It was also pointed out by Director I/c OMPL that the
majority of non-executives were provided employment
through rehabilitation package approved by the Government
of Karnataka for Project Displaced Families (PDF) land losers.
About 80% of the non-executives are from PDF including 30%
of women, who acquired skills over the last 4-5 years during
project commissioning and plant operation. There is
discemible unrest amongst these PDF non-executives due to
very low salary as compared to industry standards and it is
increasingly becoming difficult to manage the operations
safely.
4. It was also informed to the Board that high attrition rate
amongst E1 to E4 executives was resulting in lower than
critical manpower to run the complex safely and maintain
minimum safety standards.
5. Due to increase in global Paraxylene (Px) prices from late
August 2018, there has been increase in margins resulting in
PAT positive for the first time since commissioning. As such,
there is a potential opportunity for the plant to turn around
and made profitable with the global Px pricing estimated to
remain bullish in this fiscal year.
6. It was informed to the Board that categorization of OMPL
as a scheduled CPSE has not been done by the government so
far. In this context, the need for obtaining Presidential
Directive in terms of DPE guidelines before implementation of
Schedule 'D' pay scales for OMPL. executives need to be
examined. It was also deliberated whether the present
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
proposal to align the executive pay scales as per schedule 'D'
pay scales of DPE would be termed as 'Pay Revision' or it can
be deemed as 'Adoption' of DPE scales for the first time in
OMPL rather than revision of Pay scales.
7. The Board was further apprised that in case classification
from DPE is obtained that the issue of Presidential Directive is
required, the effective date of implementation of revised
scales would need to be done as per the effective date
mentioned in DPE guidelines, which may be difficult to
implement considering that the company is still a growing
company. As such, for the present, it is being submitted that
the proposal is to align the pay scales on a prospective basis
only.
8. In line with directive by HRM Committee's recommendation
to obtain clarifications from DPE in matters related to fixation
of salary in Basic + IDA pattern, OMPL Company Secretary
along with COO visited DPE office and met Director (Wage
Cell) and other officials. It was clarified in the meeting that
Company can align their pay scales w.r.t. Schedule D, as
OMPL is not yet categorized under any Schedule.
9. The CEO OMPL submitted that considering the present
situation at the plant where acute attrition at the induction
level is hampering the operation of the plant, the proposal for
alignment of executives' pay scales as per Schedule 'D' pay
scales of DPE may be considered.
10. Director I/c OMPL requested the Board to consider the
proposal of salary alignment as proposed keeping in view the
extreme need to improve the salary structure of both
executives and non-executives.
11. Based on above, the Board advised to seek clarification
from DPE whether issue of Presidential Directive is required
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
for first time adoption of Schedule 'D' Pay scales (which is the
lowest category of classification) in the company.
12. The Board after due deliberations and approved the
proposal for pay alignment for non- executives as
recommended by HRM committee for implementation.
13. In respect of pay alignment of executives, following
aspects were deliberated bringing out the fact that OMPL
being a Government company, the pay scales are on CTC
basis and not as per DPE guidelines:
a. The current proposal is to align the executives' pay scales
in line with DPE guidelines and accordingly fix the pay scales.
b. Even though, Government has not scheduled the company,
the proposal considered the minimum category i.e., Schedule
D as per guidelines of 3rd PRC 2017 and pay scales have been
considering the minimum of DPE guidelines 2017.
C. The proposed alignment of pay would be at the lowest end
of PSU structure and in line with DPE guidelines.
14. Considering all the above, Board deliberated and approved
the recommendations of HRM Committee in principle and also
considering the critical situation of manpower as informed by
CEO- OMPL and Director I/c OMPL, decided to give ad-hoc
relief/recoverable advance of 50% of differential due amount
to E1 to E4 executives wherever applicable on monthly basis
as per workings placed before the Board, which would be
adjusted when the final salary implementation is done
subsequent to Presidential directive. Board directed CEO-
OMPL to obtain necessary clarifications from Department of
Public Enterprises for implementation of Schedule "D" pay
scales for the Company. As the Company being an
unscheduled company, necessary Presidential directive for pay
alignment as per DPE guidelines from Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas may be obtained.
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
15. Adequate safeguards will be put in place by the Company
to recover the advance paid in case of separation prior to the
issue of Presidential directive.
The Board passed the following resolution:"
9. As could be seen from the above, the Board took
note of the fact that there was a high attrition rate
amongst 'E1' to 'E4' executives, which resulted in low
manpower which was critical to run the complex safely and
to maintain minimum safety standards.
10. It also took note of the fact that the categorization of
the OMPL as a scheduled CPSE has not been done by the
Government so far and, in that context, the need for
obtaining a Presidential directive in terms of the DPE
Guidelines before implementation of Schedule-D pay
scales was to be examined.
11. It also deliberated as to whether the present
proposal to align the executive pay scales as per
Schedule-D pay scales of the DPE could be termed as a
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
pay revision or if it could be deemed as adoption of the
DPE pay scales.
12. The Board was appraised that in case the
categorisation was obtained from the DPE, then the
issuance of a Presidential directive was required, and the
effective date of implementation of the revised scales
would have to be done as per the effective date mentioned
in the DPE guidelines, which would be difficult to
implement, considering the fact that the Company was still
a growing company, and, as such, for the present, it was
being submitted that the proposal was to only align the
pay scales on a prospective basis.
13. The minutes extracted above clearly indicate that the
Board was alive to the issue of the requirement of
following the DPE Guidelines, and yet, the Board ultimately
decided to approve the proposal of pay alignment keeping
in view the extreme need to improve the salary structure
of both the executives and non-executes, and also keeping
in mind that there was a high rate of attrition at the
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
induction level, which was hampering the operation of the
plant.
14. As could be seen from the above, the Board was
acutely conscious of the fact that the proposal was to align
the executives' pay scales in line with the DPE Guidelines
and, accordingly, fix the pay scales and though it was not
a scheduled company, the proposal was being considered
as if it was a Schedule-D company and the pay scales
were also being considered in context of the minimum DPE
Guidelines and it would be at the lowest end of the public
sector undertaking structure.
15. In other words, the Board of OMPL took a conscious
decision to fix the pay scales for both the executives and
the non-executives and in respect of alignment of pay
scales for the executives as per the 2017 pay revision
despite the fact that it had not been categorised and was
required to follow the DPE guidelines prescribed for CPSE.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
16. The exact terms of the Resolution of OMPL were as
follows:
"RESOLVED THAT approval of the Board be and is
hereby accorded to fix the pay scales for Non-
Executives as per prevailing industry pay scales
settlement as per the methodology enumerated to the
Board prospectively and as tabulated below:
Grade in OMPL Basic Scale Band in Rs.
W1 23,000-53,800
A1 26,100-70,200
A2 28,100-76,800
S1 30,.300-84,500
S2 32,500-88,900
S3 35,100-95-900
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT fixation of pay of non-
executives in the revised scales be done as per the
methodology explained to the Board.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT in principle approval of the
Board be and is hereby accorded to align the Executives
as per 2017 pay revision as per the methodology
explained and as tabulated pay scales for below and
implement subsequent to Presidential directive. The
effective date of implementation of newly aligned pay
scales shall be same as for non-executives:
Grade in Designation Basic Scale Band in
OMPL Rs.
E1 Engg/Executive 40,000-1,40,000
E2 Sr.Engg/Sr.Executi 50,000-1,60,000
ve
E3 Dy.Manager 60,000-1,80,000
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
E4 Manager 70,000-2,00,000
E5 Senior Manager 80,000-2,20,000
Capped at Chief Manager 90,000-2,40,000
E6 DGM 90,000-2,40,000
GM/GGM 90,000-2,40,000
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT approval of the Board be and
is hereby accorded to give ad-hoc relief of 50% of
differential amount for E1 to E4 executives on monthly
basis wherever applicable as per workings placed
before the Board till the Presidential Directive is
obtained and adjust the same after the implementation
of regular scales as tabulated above subsequent to
Presidential directive.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company be and is hereby authorised to obtain
necessary clarifications from Department of Public
Enterprises for implementation of Schedule "D" pay
scales for the Company.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company be and is hereby authorized to submit the
necessary application to the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas for obtaining the Presidential directives for
alignment of salaries of Executives and do the
necessary acts and deeds as may be required."
17. It may be pertinent to notice here that the above-
mentioned proposal which culminated in the passing of the
resolution had been taken up by the Board after the
process of amalgamation had been initiated. It may also
be pertinent to note that the Board of OMPL, by virtue of it
being a subsidiary company of the MRPL, obviously also
comprised of the nominees from the MRPL (the parent
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
Company) and, therefore, it was clear that the MRPL was
also aware of the background of the fixation of pay scales
to both executives and non-executives.
18. On 07.06.2019, the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas addressed a communication, which reads as
follows:
"F.No.P.12032/1/2019-CR-I/P-28586
Government of India
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
[Refinery Branch]
Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi
Dated the 7th June,
To,
CEO, OMPL
Mangalore.
Subject: Implementation of Schedule D Pay Scales (3rd
PRC) of Board level and below Board level
Executives of ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals
Ltd(OMPL) w.e.f. 01-11-2018-Implementation
Sir,
I am directed to refer to OMPL letter
No.Ref.No.NiL dated 05.01.2012 on the above
mentioned subject and to say that the proposal of OMPL
has been examined by this Ministry in consultation with
Department of Public Enterprises(DPE) and in this
regard DPE has cites para 3 of DPE guidelines dated
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
03.08.2017 which stipulates that "The revised pay scale
would be implemented subject to the condition that
additional financial impact, in the year of implementing
the revised pay-package for Board level executives.
Below Board level executives and Non-unionized
Supervisors should not be more than 20% of the
average Profit Before Tax (PBT) of last three financial
years proceeding the year of implementation."
2. In light of the above, DPE has clarified that OMPL
is not in a position to implement 20% pay scales at
present.
3. This issues with the approval of Competent
Authority.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Santanu Dhar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tel.011-23074369"
19. As could be seen from the above, the Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas was of the view that the
proposal of the OMPL regarding fixation of pay scales
pursuant to the 3rd Pay Revision Committee could not be
implemented.
20. However, on 30.10.2019, the Board of OMPL took up
the issue of granting approval to the salary structure of
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
the executives. It would be useful to extract the minutes
of said Board meeting, which reads as follows:
"EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE 77TH
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ONGC
MANGALORE PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED HELD ON
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2019 AT BOARD
ROOM, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
LIMITED, STH FLOOR, DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN,
5, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW
DELHI - 110 070
77.17 Approval of salary structure of executives
77.17.01. The Board was informed that the Board in its 70th
meeting held on 11th October 2018 had accorded
in principle approval for alignment of salary for
executives from CTC to Basic + IDA pattern
subject to approval of the Ministry of Petroleum
of Natural Gas (MoPNG).
77.17.02 The Board was also informed that MoPNG was
requested to issue Presidential directive and after
several follow-ups & clarifications, MoPNG
informed vide their letter dated June 07, 2019
that 3rd PRG could not be implemented in OMPL
as the average PBT for the last three years was
not positive.
77.17.03 Further, the Board was informed that Company
proposed to continue the CTC structure of salary
to executives with some changes in the CTC
bands. The primary reason for proposed change
of CTC band was to prevent attrition of
executives, especially at E1 to E3 level, due to
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
low emoluments, critical positions vacant leading
to safety issues in operations, difficulty in
attracting right talent and stagnation at higher
levels.
77.17.04 It was informed that the alignment of salary of non-
executives had already been implemented from
CTC to basic + IDA pattern as approved by the
Board in its 70th meeting w.e.f. 1st November
2018. Further, the annual/ promotional
increments and IDA increase to the non-
executives were also released and due to this,
non-executives' salary in all grades was higher
than executives' salary in E1 level which was
resulting in aberration. The manpower attrition
had also gone up substantially and executives in
the critical role as inductees/freshers were
actively pursuing outside opportunities.
77.17.05 It was also informed that the Nomination and
Remuneration Committee in its 7th meeting held
on July 25, 2019 advised the management to
submit the rationale for annual increment,
promotional increment and come out with a
comprehensive proposal.
77.17.06 The Board was informed that an expert advisory
firm M/s Aon Consulting Private Limited was
appointed on August 29, 2019 to study the salary
structure of different PSUs and private
organizations and suggest suitable CTC band for
executives in the Company. As per the findings of
the report submitted by the advisory firm, the
attrition was very high at induction and junior
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
levels because of lower CTC compared with some
PSUs & some private organisations and early
stagnation of CTC of senior level executives was
due to very narrow band of CTC.
77.17.07 The Board was also informed about the
recommendations made by the advisory firm
which were as follows:
a. Continue with the CTC based salary structure with
revised CTC bands for Executives w.e.f. 1st
November 2018 as tabulated below:-
Existing Annual CTC Proposed Annual
Grade Designation Band (in INR) CTC Band (in INR)
Min Max Min Max
E1 Engg/Exe 4,00,000 16,00,000 9,00,000 14,00,000
E2 Sr.Engg/Sr.Exe 5,00,000 16,00,000 11,00,000 18,00,000
E3 Dy.Mgr 8,00,000 26,00,000 14,00,000 26,00,000
E4 Mgr 14,00,000 26,00,000 16,00,000 34,00,000
E5 Sr.Mgr 18,00,000 36,00,000 18,00,000 42,00,000
E6 Chief Mgr 22,00,000 36,00,000 23,00,000 50,00,000
E7 DGM 24,00,000 36,00,000 25,00,000 58,00,000
E8A/E8B GM/GGM 26,00,000 46,00,000 28,00,000 64,00,000
• The alignment would benefit only executives in the
junior level viz., E1-E2 and few in E3 level. Balance
would remain within the band without any immediate
financial benefit.
• The adhoc amount paid (E1- E3) from November 2018
would be adjusted against revision in the above CTC.
• All executives' salary would be aligned as per proposed
CTC band.
• The salary of Executives whose CTC was less than the
minimum of the proposed CTC for the corresponding
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
grade, their salaries would be placed at minimum of
proposed band.
b. It was informed that annual increment in PSU is
fixed at 3% of basic, and since the basic was linked
with all other salary components (IDA, HRA,
superannuation benefits), the overall increment
would be around 9.4% on CTC. The annual
incremental value on total salary would increase
due to incremental DA. Further, the annual
increments in Private sector are 12%, 10% and 8%
respectively for junior management, middle
management and leadership. Accordingly, the
consultant recommended a fixed annual increment
to 9% on CTC in OMPL to all executives w. e. f. 1st
April 2019.
c. It was also informed that the 3% promotional
increment on basic for PSUs, yielded actual
increment of 10-12% due to band elevation/
transfer of the grade (resulting in changing of
scale) which would be over and above annual
increment and whereas in Private Sector, every
third year considered as promotional cycle @ 20%
salary hike. Accordingly, Consultant recommended
a fixed promotional increment of 10% of CTC to
executives in OMPL. If the new CT after
incorporating the promotional increment is less
than the minimum of the CTC band of the
promoted grade, then the minimum of the CTC
band in the promoted grade would be fixed.
d. Fix the variable payout to 100% and include the
variable pay in "Others Including Reimbursable" basket
of allowances, which would result in payout on a
monthly basis instead of payout on two tranches. The
proposed CTC Structure would be as follows:
Details % of CTC
Basic 45%
House Rent Allowance (40% of basic) 18%
Others Including Reimbursable 29.44%
(65.14% of basic)
Provident Fund (12% of basic) 5.40%
Gratuity (4.81% of basic) 2.16%
Total Monthly 100%
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
e. Matching of CTC of the executives senior in respective
grade drawing lower CTC than their junior colleagues
in the same grade.
f. Review CTC band after 3 years or change in the status
of the Company whichever would be earlier.
g. Delegate the authority to a committee consisting of HR
representatives of OMPL, ONGC and MRPL, to resolve
any anomalies in implementation of above proposed
pay.
77.17.08 The additional annual financial implication by
changing the CTC band would be Rs.2.73 Crore
and for annual increment and promotional
increment would be Rs.1.10 Crore.
77.17.09 The Board was informed that the Nomination and
Remuneration Committee in its 8th meeting held
on October 30, 2019 deliberated and
recommended the same to the Board for
approval.
77.17.10 The Board after detailed deliberation, approved the
proposal by passing the following resolution:
"RESOLVED THAT the approval of the
Board be and is hereby accorded to
revise the salary structure of the
executives w.e.f. from November 01,
2018 as under:
Pay structure-
Grade Designation Annual CTC Band
(in INR)
Min Max
E1 Engg/Exe 9,00,000 14,00,000
E2 Sr.Engg/Sr.Exe 11,00,000 18,00,000
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
E3 Dy.Mgr 14,00,000 26,00,000
E4 Mgr 16,00,000 34,00,000
E5 Sr.Mgr 18,00,000 42,00,000
E6 Chief Mgr 23,00,000 50,00,000
E7 DGM 25,00,000 58,00,000
E8A/E8B GM/GGM 28,00,000 64,00,000
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval
of the Board be and is hereby accorded
to fix the annual increment to 9% on
CTC with effect from April 01, 2019.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval
of the Board be and is hereby accorded
to fix the promotional increment to 10%
on CTC with effect from April 01, 2019.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval
of the Board be and is hereby accorded
to revise the structure of the CTC for
executives as below:
Details % of CTC
Basic 45%
House Rent Allowance (40% of basic) 18%
Others Including Reimbursable 29.44%
(65.14% of basic)
Provident Fund (12% of basic) 5.40%
Gratuity (4.81% of basic) 2.16%
Total Monthly 100%
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval
of the Board be and is hereby accorded
to match the CTC of executives having
seniority in respective grade who are
drawing lower CTC than their junior
colleagues in the same grade, with the
CTC of the junior colleague within the
similar grade.
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval
of the Board be and is hereby accorded
to review the CTC band after three years
or change in the status of the Company
whichever is earlier.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval
of the Board be and is hereby accorded
to delegate the authority to a committee
consisting of HR representatives of
ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals
Limited, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited and Mangalore Refinery and
Petrochemicals Limited, to resolve any
anomalies in implementation of the
revised pay, with approval of Director
I/c, OMPL.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval
of the Board be and is hereby accorded
to make suitable changes in the
Employee Handbook/ Promotion
Policy/Recruitment Policy wherever
applicable, with approval of Director
I/c, OMPL."
21. As could be seen from the above minutes, the Board
was aware of the fact that the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas had opined vide its letter dated 07.06.2019
that the 3rd Pay Revision Committee could not be
implemented in the OMPL as the average profit before tax
for the last 3 years was not plausible.
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
22. The Board was also informed that it was proposed to
continue the CTC structure of salary to the executives with
some changes in the CTC bands, and the primary reason
for the proposed change to the CTC band was to prevent
the attrition rate of executives, especially at "E1" to E3"
levels due to low emoluments, critical positions, vacant
leading to safety issues in operation.
23. The Board also noticed that an Expert Advisory Firm
has been appointed to study the salary structure of
different PSUs and private organizations and then suggest
a suitable CTC band for the executives in the Company,
and as per the findings of the report submitted by the
advisory firm, the attrition was very high at the induction
and junior levels, because of the lower CTC when
compared to the other PSUs and some private
organisations. The Board, in fact, has taken into
consideration all these factors along with the additional
annual financial implication for changing the CTC band of
Rs.2.73 crores and for annual and promotional increment
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
- Rs.1.10 crores, before ultimately approving the
resolution.
24. It is thus clear that the issue regarding the
applicability of the DPE Guidelines, the observation of
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that the 3rd Pay
Revision Commission could not be implemented for the
OMPL, was taken into consideration, but given the fact
that the expert advisory firm had also opined about the
lower CTC that the Company was adopting was a cause for
the higher attrition rate, the Board, ultimately, took a
conscious decision to revise the salary structure.
25. As already stated above, it cannot be in dispute that
the Board of OMPL (the subsidiary company of the MRPL)
contained the nominees of the MRPL and they were thus
aware of the need to fix the pay scales differently to that
of the employees of the OMPL, given the higher attrition
rate in the OMPL.
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
26. The counsel appearing for the petitioners cited the
following judgments:
a. N.P. Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
1989 Supp (1) SCC 748: the rationalisation
scheme therein was held to be discriminatory in
terms of equation of posts and the integration of
the management staff of two organisations;
b. Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube Wells
Corporation & Ors. v. G.S. Uppal & Ors.,
(2008) 7 SCC 375: equal pay is dependent on
the nature of work done and not the volume.
Varying responsibilities must be considered for
intelligible differentia in terms of pay structures;
c. Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal &
Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 746: equality must guide
every administrative action in terms of Article
14.
d. Aadyaarush Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka, W.P. 52028/2018: the
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
deciding authority is to be impartial without bias
and cannot be a judge of his own cause, and that
justice must not only be done but must also
appear to be done; and
e. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. the Chief
Election Commissioner & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC
405: orders made cannot be construed in light
of any explanations given subsequently.
27. It may also be relevant to state here that when the
issue of amalgamation came up for consideration, the
Officers' Association of the OMPL had also submitted a
representation raising their grievances.
28. A representation by way of affidavit was also filed by
an office bearer of the Association on 28.02.2022, and in
response to said representation by way of affidavit, the
OMPL addressed a communication to the Association on
15.03.2022 in the following terms:
"To,
OMPL Officer Association,
OMPL Mangaluru.
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
1.0) This has the reference to your letter dated 11th March
2022 addressed to MD MRPL & Director incharge OMPL
and copied to respected CMD and all Directors.
2.0) As you are all aware, OMPL became a central
Government PSU company from Feb 2015 onwards. All
rules and regulations as applicable to any central PSU
become applicable to OMPL employees also. A proposal
to align OMPL Management staff pay scale to 3rd PRC
was taken to OMPL Board during OCT/Nov 2018.
During the process of seeking due approvals as per
DPE guidelines, as applicable for a Central public sector
company, MOPNG has stated that OMPL is not in a
position to implement 2017 pay scales.
3.0) OMPL net worth has eroded considerable and balance
sheet continues to bleed mainly due to adverse
conditions. The merger needs to be completed before
the financial year ending 31st March 2022 to stop OMPL
on defaulting in loan repayment and further borrowing.
The consequences of such an event, if happens, is
explained to all officer bearers of OMPL Management
staff association during multiple meetings.
4.0) A systematic approach needs to be taken within the
applicable DPE guidelines and prevailing Government
rules and regulations to arrive at calculated Basic pay
for every employee of OMPL while aligning the pay to
MRPL prevailing pay structure. Any deviations from
DPE Guidelines and prevailing Government rules and
regulations will only lead to complications for all stake
holders, which is certainly not tenable and workable
and solutions proposed beyond DPE guidelines and
prevailing Government rules and regulations are un-
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
implementable. While some work has been done
through a reputed HR consultant, it is felt that
guidance from competent authority may also be
needed to conclude the pay alignment.
5.0) The Seniority of OMPL Employee within the mapped
grade of MRPL will be maintained in comparison to
MRPL employees in the grade.
6.0) It is recognised that there are no DPE guidelines for
grade alignment and decisions from the competent
authority remains final. The demand by OMPL
management association for grade equalisation of
OMPL management employees with MRPL grades
needs more in-depth analysis and resolved logically.
Resolutions to some of the above issues raised needs more
time and essentially goes beyond the date of financial merger.
Accordingly, a high level committee is being formed with
necessary guidance drawn from competent authority. The
committee will work close consultation with all stake holders
in a time bound manner to resolve any outstanding issues
arising of the HR merger.
In view of above assurance from the management, the
affidavit filed in MCA by OMPL Officers Association may be
immediately withdrawn to ensure smooth and early
completion of merger process.
Sd/-
Chief Executive Officer"
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
29. It may also be pertinent to state here that on the
very same day i.e., on 15.03.2022, the MoCA had issued a
notice fixing the date for hearing on the application for
amalgamation as 31.03.2022.
30. It is therefore clear that in order to ensure that the
objections to the amalgamation were withdrawn, this
communication dated 15.03.2022 was addressed to the
Officers' Association.
31. A reading of said reply would also indicate that the
employees' grievances regarding alignment was the issue
for which a high level committee was being formed and
that this committee would work in close consultation with
all the stakeholders to resolve all outstanding issues. It is
obvious that on the basis of this communication, the office
bearers of the Officers' Association withdrew its
representation.
32. It may also be pertinent to state here that just a day
before the hearing by the MoCA, the Officers' Association
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
of the MRPL had also submitted a representation raising
seven issues. The MoCA while considering said
representation has taken note of these seven issues raised
and has stated as follows:
"23. Further, the ministry received another representation
from MRPL Management Staff Association through an email
dated 30.03.2022, wherein the complainant alleged that OMPL
became subsidiary of MRPL and in turn a CPSE. After
becoming CPSE, OMPL has not followed the
guidelines/directions of the Government of India in fixing the
pay & allowances, grades service conditions etc. The
Complainant broadly prayed before this ministry as under:
i) to fix the pay scale, pay structure, grade etc. of
officers of the Transferor Company in line with
the second pay revisions of 2007 prescribed by
DPE as applicable to an unscheduled CPSE.
ii) ii) The Transferor and Transferee Company be
directed to recalculate the pay including annual
and promotional increments of Officers of the
Transferor Company from the date of their joining
the Transferor Company or from the date the
Transferor Company became a CPSE.
iii) The Transferor and Transferee Company be
directed to disregard recruitment or promotion of
any Officer of the Transferor Company to a grade
equivalent to or higher than DPE prescribed
grade.
iv) The Transferor and Transferee Company be
directed to recalculate the promotions of Officers
of the Transferor Company from one grade to
another grade for DPE grades E3 to E6 in the
Transferor Company in line with the travelling
period for DPE grades E3 to E6
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
v) The Transferor and Transferee Company be
directed to recover any payment made as salary
to Officers of the Transferor Company in excess
of the salary payable to them as per the
applicable DPE/ Government of India directions.
vi) the Transferee Company be directed to fit
Officers of the Transferor Company in the payrolls
of the Transferee Company as per the DPE
grades.
vii) The Transferee Company be directed to protect
the grade wise and inter se seniority of the
Officers of the Transferee Company upon the
transfer of Officers of the Transferor Company.
24. That, a final hearing in the matter was held on
31.03.2022 and the issue related to the complaint of MRPL
Management Staff Association were discussed at the time of
hearing. The authorized representative of the petitioner
companies referred the two judgments i.e. In the matter of
Hindustan Lever Employees' union vs Hindustan Lever Ltd and
others- The Supreme Court of India and (ii) in the matter of
IPCL Employees Association and Ors. Vs Indian
Petrochemicals Corporation Limited - The High Court of
Gujarat and stated that employees or workers may approach
to the appropriate forum for their grievances, if any, and the
scheme of amalgamation cannot be faulted on apprehension
and speculation as to what might possibly happen in future.
Further, Transferee Company is not going to be dissolved."
33. It is clear from the above that the issue regarding
integration was raised by both the Officers' Associations of
the OMPL and the MRPL before the final hearing regarding
confirmation of the scheme of amalgamation, and the
petitioners' Association withdrew its representation after it
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
received the communication dated 15.03.2022 from the
OMPL, whereas the Officers' Association of the MRPL did
not withdraw its representation. It may also be noticed
that the representation raised by the Officers association
was, in fact, considered by the MoCA while passing the
final order.
34. It may also be pertinent to state here that the
scheme of amalgamation, insofar as it related to the
employees (Cl 3.2 (vii), did indicate that all the employees
of the OMPL would become, without any interruption and
as a result of the amalgamation, the employees of the
MRPL and this should be done by normalizing the
employee grade, structure, pay scale and such other terms
and conditions of the employment of the OMPL and MRPL
polices and the provisions of the relevant guidelines, rules
and regulations prescribed in that regard by the DPE and
other relevant regulatory authorities in relation to CPSEs.
35. It may be pertinent to state here that this particular
clause was specifically taken note of by the MoCA and
- 69 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
incorporated in Clause 28, and it was thereafter
specifically stated, with reference to this particular clause,
that all the employees of the OMPL as on the appointed
date would be deemed to be the employees of MRPL
without any breach or interruption of service. However,
more importantly, it clearly stated that it would be on
terms and conditions which are not less favourable than
those applicable to them as on the appointed date.
36. A reading of this particular clause would thereby
clearly indicate that notwithstanding anything what was
stated in the scheme of amalgamation, the final order
declared that the employees of the OMPL would be
deemed to be the employees of the MRPL and their
employment would be liable to continued on terms and
conditions which were not less favourable to them as
compared to the terms which were applicable to them as
on the appointed date i.e., on 01.04.2021.
37. To put it in simpler terms, the MoCA categorically
stated that the terms and conditions of the employees of
- 70 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
the OMPL cannot be lowered or reduced in any manner
and the terms and conditions that were applicable to the
employees of the OMPL while they were at OMPL would
have to be maintained post amalgamation also.
38. This would basically mean that an employee of the
OMPL, post amalgamation, could be entitled to a higher or
more beneficial terms and conditions of service but could
not be forced or subjected to a reduction or a diminution
in his service conditions.
39. To put it in a different way, if an employee of the
OMPL was earning Rs.X, he could probably be given
Rs.X+5 by the MRPL post amalgamation, but at any rate,
he could not be given any sum less than Rs.X. This
principle would also be applicable in respect of other
service conditions also.
40. However, it is the case of the MRPL that the
employees of the OMPL were not entitled to the pay
structure that had been given to them by the Board. In
- 71 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
fact, it is the specific case of the MRPL that the pay
structure granted to the employees of the OMPL were
contrary to the DPE guidelines.
41. The averments made in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the
statement of objections in this writ petition would indicate
the specific grievance that the MRPL has about the pay
structure of the employees of the OMPL, and they read as
under:
"6. In view of OMPL not having adopted and followed the DPE
guidelines, it continued to follow the CTC pay structure
devised prior to OMPL becoming a CPSE. In fact this CTC pay
structure was followed by OMPL till the effective date of
merger with MRPL i.e., 01.05.2022. This was in gross violation
of mandatory DPE guideline. In view of the continuance of CT
pay structure, the employees of OMPL like the petitioners
herein were being paid a salary which was much much higher
than what pay which was otherwise payable to a similar post
held in any CPSE. The annual increment and promotional
increment to OMPL employees was 13 and 14 times more
than what is allowed for a CPSE employee as per DPE
guidelines. House Rent Allowance ('HRA' for short) was also
paid at a much higher rate than what is permitted as per DPE
guidelines. Further, the annual increment and promotion
increment to the OMPL employees were at 9% and 10% of
the CTC pay when infact, the annual increment and promotion
increment at any other CPSE is at 3% on the basic pay as
defined in the DPE guidelines. MRPL has been following the
- 72 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
DPE guidelines with regard to the pay scales and the
Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA' for short) pay structure
as per the DPE guidelines for CPSEs. In that view of the
matter the annual increment and promotion increment at
MRPL is at 3% on the basic pay as defined in the DPE
guidelines.
7. All the CPSEs are categorized into four Schedules namely
'A, 'B', 'C' and 'D' based upon various qualitative, quantitative
and other factors. Factors such as investment, capital
employed, net sales, profit before tax, number of employees,
number of units, value added per employees, national
importance, complexities of problems, level of technology,
prospects of expansion and diversification of activities and
competition from other sectors, strategic importance of the
corporation etc. are taken note of while categorizing the
CPSEs under different schedule. The Navratna and Miniratna
CPSEs fall in Schedule A and B respectively. MRPL is a
schedule A CPSE.
8. When majority stakes were bought by ONGC in MRPL,
MRPL was categorized as Schedule B CPSE after having
demonstrated sustained profitability for two years post take
over. Having regard to the scale of operations and the profits
that MRPL has made, MRPL was now been upgraded to
schedule A CPSE. In terms of guidelines of DPE, a Schedule A
CPSE is eligible to adopt DPE grade and pay scale upto grade
E9. Whereas, a Schedule B CPSE is eligible to adopt DPE
grade and pay scale upto grade E8. Similarly a schedule C &
D CPSE are eligible to adopt DPE grade and pay scale upto
grade E6. Copies of the Office Memorandum dated
30.11.2011 reflecting the categorization of CPSEs into
different schedules and the Office Memorandum dated
- 73 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
26.11.2008 reflecting different grade and pay level in CPSEs
are produced herewith marked Annexures - R1 & R2.
9. In view of MRPL being a schedule A CPSE, it has adopted
the DPE grade/ pay scale upto E9. On the contrary, as on the
date of merger of OMPL with MRPL, OMPL was an unscheduled
CPSE and was a loss making entity. In fact, except for a single
year, OMPL has never made profits since its incorporation. In
fact OMPL has never made profits since incorporation. OMPL
being an unscheduled CPSE has to follow provisions applicable
to Schedule D CPSE for grade and pay scales i.e., grades only
up to DPE E6 with pay band of 36,600-62,000 (as per 2d pay
revision order) for below board level positions. On the
contrary, OMPL was having grades / pay scales above DPE E6
grade/pay scale, which amounted to violation of DPE
guidelines."
42. As already stated above, it is indisputable that the
nominees of the MRPL were also on the Board of OMPL and
from the facts narrated above it is also absolutely clear
that the MRPL was aware of the pay structure granted to
the employees of the OMPL by the Board of OMPL.
43. It also cannot be in dispute that the pay structure
given to the employees of the OMPL was by the Board of
OMPL and not by the employees themselves. In fact, the
Board had given them this benefit taking of the pay
- 74 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
structure after taking note of certain extenuating
circumstances which was hampering the functioning of
OMPL and the Board was in fact constrained to grant them
the pay structure to ensure a proper functioning of the
OMPL. To state this differently, the Board of OMPL gave
the petitioners the benefit of a pay structure in the
interests of the OMPL and in order to benefit and protect
the OMPL.
44. If the Board of OMPL, rightly or wrongly, had
conferred certain benefits to the employees of the OMPL
before its amalgamation, by virtue of Clause 28 of the final
order of confirmation of the scheme of amalgamation, this
benefit cannot be withdrawn or reduced, either directly or
indirectly by the MRPL, especially when the MRPL being
the parent company was aware of the pay structure being
given to the petitioners.
45. It is no doubt true that the MRPL contends that the
benefits that were given to the employees of the OMPL
prior to its amalgamation were unjustified and issues had
- 75 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
been raised even by the CAG on the premise that the DPE
guidelines, guiding the functioning of the CPSEs, had not
been followed.
46. As already stated above, the Board had taken note of
the fact that it was approving the pay structure
notwithstanding the fact that the OMPL was yet to be
categorised and the Board, in fact, sought to justify the
approval of the pay structure by saying that it was fixing
the pay scales by assuming that the OMPL would be a
Schedule-D company and the OMPL was faced with a high
attrition rate which was hampering its functioning.
47. The consideration of the Board about the issuance of
the pay structure clearly indicates that the Board had
examined all the objections that are now sought to be
raised by the MRPL and it, nevertheless, proceeded to
grant its employees the CTC pay structure. Once the CTC
pay structure was given, it would not be open for the
MRPL to contend that the benefits given should be
withdrawn post amalgamation.
- 76 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
48. Mr. Uday Holla--learned senior counsel appearing for
the MRPL strenuously contended that, as a matter of fact,
except for a few employees, there had been an increase of
pay in respect of all the other employees.
49. Mr. Manmohan--learned counsel appearing for the
erstwhile employees of the OMPL, per contra, contended
that the grade of the employees itself had been reduced
and they were forced to work under persons who were
juniors to them and the allowances that they were entitled
to stood greatly diminished. He also submitted that the
erstwhile employees of the OMPL would have no objections
if the service conditions as it existed while the OMPL was
in existence and the petitioners were drawing were
maintained.
50. In light of this statement, it is clear that the MRPL
would be obliged to ensure that the benefits the erstwhile
employees of the OMPL had secured under the Resolutions
of the Board would have to be necessarily continued even
post amalgamation.
- 77 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
51. It would also be necessary to notice here that the
fact remains that the Resolutions passed by the Board in
Oct 2018 and October 2019, which conferred the erstwhile
employees of the OMPL with certain benefits, were not
rescinded or recalled during the existence of the OMPL,
even though objections had been raised by the relevant
authorities.
52. It may be pertinent to notice here that the final order
of confirmation of the scheme of amalgamation is
statutory in nature since an order of amalgamation passed
under Section 232 of the Companies Act, specifically
provides for a provision to be made regarding the transfer
of employees [Section 232(3)(g) of the Companies Act]
while amalgamating two companies.
53. The MoCA, by specifically referring to Clause 3.2(vii)
of the amalgamation scheme, has passed a specific order
guaranteeing the employees of the erstwhile OMPL that
their conditions of service post amalgamation would not be
less favourable as compared to the terms and conditions
- 78 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
that they were entitled to as employees of the erstwhile
OMPL. This order of confirmation, being statutory in
nature, cannot be overcome by the MRPL by contending
that the decision taken by the erstwhile Board was
incorrect and contrary to the DPE guidelines.
54. It is no doubt true that the MoCA in its affidavit has
stated Paragraph 28 of the order which safeguards the
rights of the erstwhile employees of the OMPL post
amalgamation is a paragraph which is routinely inserted
while sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation and it has
been inserted on a bona fide assumption that the
Companies are carrying out activities in accordance with
all applicable rules and regulations. It is also no doubt true
that they have stated that this paragraph cannot be used
for rectifying any previous wrongs of procedural lapses on
the part of the transferor--Company.
55. It has to be stated here that such an affidavit by the
MoCA which is discharging statutory functions in the
matter of amalgamations, cannot be appreciated. An order
- 79 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
passed in exercise of specific statutory provision cannot be
wished away by stating that it was a routine paragraph
and nothing much can be read into it.
56. A reading of Clause 28 would indicate that the MoCA
considered the specific clause pertaining to the conditions
of service of employees, as provided in the Scheme of
amalgamation and categorically declared that the terms
and conditions of the employees cannot be less favourable
than the one existing prior to amalgamation. Such a
specific reference to the scheme of amalgamation and a
further order specifying the rights of the employees of the
OMPL cannot be wished away as if it is a routine
paragraph.
57. It is thus clear that the petitioners, who were the
employees of the erstwhile OMPL and had secured certain
benefits under the Board orders dated 11.10.2018 and
30.10.2019, cannot be deprived of their benefit on the
ground that the benefits that had been granted to them
were contrary to the DPE guidelines.
- 80 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
58. An argument was also sought to be advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the MRPL that the
Resolution could not be taken seriously since the agenda
set up by the Board was at the behest of the employees of
the Board and it was obviously tailored in a manner to
enable maximum benefits to the employees.
59. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple
reason that the process of amalgamation started in the
year 2015 and was pending for nearly seven years. The
fact that the Board considered all the objections that are
now sought to be raised by the MRPL and, nevertheless,
concluded that the employees deserve a higher pay scale
based on CTC, given the then existing circumstances,
renders the argument of the learned senior counsel
without any merit.
60. It may also be pertinent to state here that, at the
end of the day, the OMPL was a subsidiary company and
the nominees of the parent company were always
representing the MRPL and, in effect, the decision taken by
- 81 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
the OMPL would thereby have the concurrence of the
parent company also.
61. It is no doubt true that a subsidiary company is not a
puppet company as argued by the learned senior counsel
by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International
Holdings1 in support of his arguments, and the nominees
of the parent company would participate in the
proceedings of the subsidiary company and act in the
interest of the subsidiary company.
62. Even if this is to be accepted as a valid argument, it
only emphasises the fact that the decision of the Board of
OMPL in granting a pay structure to the employees of the
OMPL was for the benefit of the employees and also in the
interests of the OMPL. Such a benefit extended to the
employees of the OMPL, by virtue of paragraph 28 of the
order, which ultimately was in the interests of the OMPL,
Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India & Anr, (2012) 6 SCC
613.
- 82 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
cannot be deprived to the employees of the OMPL post
amalgamation, especially when paragraph 28 of the order
of amalgamation created a statutory protection insofar as
the employees of the OMPL were concerned.
63. Consequently, the writ petitions would have to be
disposed of by directing the MRPL to continue all the
benefits that the erstwhile employees of the OMPL were
receiving prior to its amalgamation (if necessary, by
creating a separate cadre for them).
64. The erstwhile employees of the OMPL shall be
entitled to pay grades that they were holding as on
01.04.2021 i.e., the appointed date and, post
amalgamation, they shall not be reduced in grade or pay.
65. It is, however, clarified that it would be open for the
MRPL to grant the erstwhile employees of the OMPL a
higher benefit or a benefit that they were not entitled to
while they were the employees of the OMPL to bring them
on par with the employees of the MRPL. In other words,
- 83 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17148
they would be entitled to the grant of a higher grade or a
higher pay post amalgamation but, at any rate, they would
not be liable to any diminution of either their pay or grade.
66. The submission of the learned counsel for the OMPL
that the petitioners would have no objection for
maintaining a separate category for the erstwhile
employees of the OMPL and for conferring them the same
benefits that they had while they were the employees of
the OMPL, is taken on record.
67. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK/-
Ct: SN
