TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offered the post which was to last for 22 days roughly. He was also told that his appointment was purely temporary and that other terms of service were those as set out in the letter dated December 7, 1963, one of which was that the appellant will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of the appointment and the same may be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority and that the appointment may be terminated at any time by a month's notice given by either side. On January 13, 1965, the appellant was informed in writing by the Memorandum No. PF/K-44/64-ENT that the appellant, on successful completion of the probation period of six months, is continued in service on regular basis until further orders. By Office order dated April 6, 1967, the appellant, who was described as storekeeper, Grade 1, Mech. Engg. Branch, was transferred to Cambay Nawagam project. This transfer order was challenged by the appellant on diverse grounds in a suit filed by him. He sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the order of transfer. Interim injunction as prayed for was granted. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission Employees' Mazdoor Sabha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., yet in view of the provisions contained in section 13B of the Act, no provisions of the Act would apply to the undertaking of the Corporation. The High Court repelled the contention of the appellant that the order of termination of service is violative of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1964, observing that as the service of the appellant was not dispensed with on the allegation of misconduct, but as it was an order of termination of service simpliciter in accordance with the Regulation 25, no other regulation is shown to have been contravened by the impugned order. The High Court rejected the submission on behalf of the appellant that the Corporation is a State or at any rate an "instrumentality of the State" as contemplated by article 12 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the protection of articles 14 and 16 observing that "it is not the requirement of law that in order to dismiss one employee on the ground of unsuitability, the Government or the Corporation is required to dismiss all", an observation which has left us guessing as to its content and meaning. The Division Bench finally concluded that as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s" suggests an indefinite period. It is difficult to construe it as clothing him with the status of a temporary employee. It is even worse than being a probationer because the apprehended further order may follow the very next day. Therefore, the expression "until further orders", being thoroughly irrelevant, has to be ignored. It is even inconsistent with the appointment on regular basis as stated in that very order. If the appellant was appointed on a regular basis, his service cannot be terminated by one month's notice. If it is by way of punishment, as the High Court has found it to be so, it will be violative of the principles of natural justice in that no opportunity was given to the appellant to clear himself of the alleged misconduct which never found its expression on paper but which remained in the minds of those passing the order of termination of service. If it is discharge simpliciter, it would be violative of article 16 because a number of storekeepers junior to the appellant are shown to have been retained in service and the appellant cannot be picked arbitrarily. He had the protection of article 16 which confers on him the fundamental right of equality and equal tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed, this public sector corporation has disclosed the typical private employer's unconcealed dislike and detestation of an active trade unionist. From the facts stated in the earlier portion of the judgment, it appears that the appellant was a protected workman. Add to this the fact that the secret letter of Mr. L. J. Johnson dated September 6, 1967, reveals the inner working of the mind of the top brass of the Corporation where Mr. Johnson states that Mr. Joshi (appellant) is the main trouble-maker in the Corporation. Earlier, on March 29, 1967, the Assistant Director wrote to the Director of Stores to transfer the appellant from Dehradun to Assam, which is the usual management response, namely, to transfer an active trade union worker to weaken the trade union movement. Even a charge of victimisation qua the appellant was made in writing. The then Petroleum Minister, Mr. Ashok Mehta, wrote to Mr. Natwarlal Shah, ONGC Employees Mazdoor Sabha, wherein he assured that the Corporation would not be interested in victimising anyone and yet soon after, within three months, the services of the appellant were terminated. And now the reasons for the termination of service of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant whether substantial and adequate compensation would be more acceptable to him or reinstatement with back-wages. The appellant opted for the latter and Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel for the Commission, conceded that the Corporation would willingly pay Rs. 2 lakhs as and by way of back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the appellant to work out the spread-over of backwages. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted the calculations of backwages. The figures therein set out are not disputed. We accept the same and treat it as part of the judgment. A copy of it shall always be annexed to the copy of this judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is quashed and set aside and the rule is made absolute in the writ petition. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission is directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the appellant on the basis of the calculations herein submitted in lieu of backwages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement within a period of four weeks from today. In view of the computation made in respect of backwages and compensation from year....