B.R. CHOWDHURY versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 15-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
B.R. CHOWDHURY 
v. 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
JANUARY 15, 2004 
[SHIVA RAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DAHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Dealership-Retail petrol pump-Preference given to unemployed 
youths-Applicant was given dealership as he was unemployed on the relevant . 
C date-Subsequently, his dealership was cancelled as he was found to be 
employed during the relevant period although as a trainee-Validity of-
Held: Merely because a person was a trainee it cannot be said that he was 
not an employee on the relevant date-Hence, applicant's dealership was 
rig~tly cancelled. 
D 
The respondent-Corporation invited applications for appointment of 
a dealer relating to a retail outlet. It was open to all but preference was 
to be given to unemployed youth. The appellant was given the dealership 
as an unemployed youth. The appellant was engaged as a trainee 
Professional Sales Representative in a Chemical Laboratory. However, the 
appellant wrote 'Nil' against the relevant column relating to employment. 
E The affidavit given by the appellant and the Memorandum of Agreement 
provided that if any information given by the appellant was found to be 
false his dealership was liable to be terminated. 
Respondent No. 5 who had also applied for dealership filed objections 
F before the Oil Selection Board challenging the selection of the appellant 
on the ground that the appellant was an employee on the relevant date. 
After enquiry, the appellant's dealership was cancelled. The writ petition 
filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant du.ring 
G the relevant period was working as a trainee and not as an employee and, 
therefore, cancellation of his dealership was not justified; and that the 
appellant's dealership was cancelled mechanically without application of 
mind. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
520 
B.R. CHOWDHURY v.INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. [PATIL. J.] 
521 
HELD: 1.1. The affidavit and the Memorandum of Agreement gave A 
liberty to fhe respondent-Corporation to terminate the agreement on 
finding that any information given by the dealer in his application for 
appointment was found to be untrue or incorrect in any material respect. 
1525-H; 526-AI 
1.2. The appellant was an employee on the relevant date. Mere use B 
of the word trainee cannot be taken to say that he was not an employee 
particularly so when his services were confirmed later. Nothing prevented 
the appellant from mentioning in the application as against the status of 
employment at least as a trainee. But on the other hand, the appellant has 
shown the status of occupation as 'Nil'. 1527-F, GI 
C 
2. In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant coupled with the 
Memorandum of Agreement, the respondent-Corporation was well within 
its right to terminate the dealership of the appellant. It cannot be said that 
the order passed by the respondent-Corporation terminating the 
dealership of the appellant was mechanical or without application of mi!'d. D 
1527-H, 528-AI 
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 12003] 3 SCC 437, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 472 of E 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3 .1997 of the Calcutta High 
Court in M.A.T. No. 445 of 1997. 
Tapash Ray, Sadhan Ray Choudhary, Bijan Kumar Ghosh and B.P. F 
Nirbhay for the Appellant. 
H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri and S.K. Bhattacharya for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. The order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 10.2.1997 passed 
')I 
by a Single Judge of the High Court in C.O. No, 17843 (W) of 1996 is under 
challenge in this appeal. 
G 
Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') invited applications H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A for appointment ofa dealer relating to'a retail outlet, on 22nd June, 1987. It 
was open to all but preference was to be given to the unemployed youth. The 
appellant was given the dealership as an unemployed youth. The appellant 
was engaged as a Trainee Professional Sales Representative with Mis. Denis 
Chem Lab Limited from 23.2.1987 to 3.4.1989. He wrote 'NIL' against the 
relevant column relating to employment. The respondent No. 5 who had also 
B applied for dealership filed objections before the Oil Selection Board stating 
that the appellant was an employee an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.