LexCHAIRMAN, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus SHYAMAL CHANDRA BHOWMIK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A CHAIRMAN, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. v. SHY AMAL CHANDRA BHOWMIK B NOVEMBER 23, 2005 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] Writ Petition-Maintainability of, when disputed question of facts are C involved-Held: Not maintainable-Remedy is to approach proper forum so that evidence could be analysed-Industrial Disputes Ac.I, 1947-Section 25- F, 25-B. Respondent was working as casual worker in appellant-corporation. He made representation seeking regularisation of his service but the same D was rejected. Thereafter, he sought relief by filing writ petition. Appellant denied his claim of having worked for 240 days. High Court allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the burden to prove that respondent had not worked for more than 240 days in twelve months preceding retrenchment was on the appellant, which they failed to discharge. E In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that it was not for F employer to establish that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days; on the contrary it was for the respondent to establish the said fact. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The approach of the High Court is not correct. High Court should not entertain writ petitions directly when claim of service of more than 240 days in a year is raised. Whether a person has worked for more than 240 days or not, is a disputed question of fact which is not to be G examined by the High Court. Proper remedy for the person making such a claim is to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act so that the evidence can be analysed and conclusion can be arrived at. As in the instant case the legal position has not been analysed in the proper perspective, it would be appropriate if the matter is decided by the forum H provided under the Act. (413-C-E) 406 1 CHAIRMAN,OILANDNATURALGASCORPN. LTD. v. SHYAMALCHANDRABHOWMIK[PASAYAT, l.] 407 Range Forest Officer v. S. r Hadimani, (20021 3 SCC; Even Deinki v. A Rajiv Kumar, (2002] 8 SCC 400; Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., [20041 8 SCC 161; Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (20041 8 SCC 195; M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, (20041 8 SCC 246; Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors. [200515SCC100; Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh (2005) 7 Supreme 165; Surendranager District Panchayat v. B Dehyabhai Amarsingh, (2005) 7 Supreme 307 and R.M. Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer, JT (2005) 9 SC 340, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1909 of 2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.2004 of the Gauhati High C Court at Agartala Bench in W.A. No. 26 of 2002. G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, Devdart Kamat, Harikesh Baruah, C.P. Sharma, V.N. Koura, Choudhary, A. Mariarputham and Ms. Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co. for the Appellants. D Sanjay Parikh, A.N. Singh and Ms. Anita Shenoy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'ONGC') calls in question legality of the E judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench, dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants and thereby affirming order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition (Civil Rule No.144/1992). Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: In May, 1992 respondent filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court claiming that he had been working as casual worker in ONGC since November, 1982 with intermittent lay offs and but for such intermittent lay F offs which were deliberate, he would have worked for more than 240 days G and in any event during the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. It was averred that from 2.12.1984 to 10.6.1985 he had worked as an Automobile Mechanic Helper which established that he is a skilled mechanic and entitled to the said post on a regular basis. \t was further claimed that on l 0.1.1992 he made a representation/demand seeking regularization in the post of Automobile Mechanic but the .same was H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A rejected by communication dated 30.4.1992. Respondent challenged the said decision in a Writ Petition (Civil Rule No. 144/1992). In the writ petition, prayer was made to quash the said communication and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.