1. This appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant-original petitioner against the C.A.V. judgment dated 2.11.2018 passed
by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 29534 of 2007, wherein, challenge was to the award dated 30th June, 2007, passed by Central
Government & Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (“the Tribunal†for short) in Reference (CGITA) No. 201 of 2004, whereby claim of
the petitioner stood rejected and hence writ-petition invoking powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was preferred.
2. The claim before the Tribunal was raised by the petitioner, namely, 5 members of the respondent company, through ONGC Electrical and Allied
Staff Association, an unrecognized Union of workers, who were working as Assistant Engineer (A) since 1980 on different projects and various units
of the respondent company at Mehsana, Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Ankleshwar and since their entry in service in the year 1980, they were
compelled to perform additional duties such as working on electric motor, rewinding, S.R. Pump checking, maintenance work, attending the high
voltage line and operating DG sets etc. and in the absence of any job description, those members of the petitioner Union were denied extra allowance
and other benefits, which resulted into monetary loss to them.
3. Having considered overall material as well as documentary evidence in detail, the learned CGIT did not find any cogent reasons to accept the
demand of the Union and direct the ONGC to consider such demand. So was the case before the learned Single Judge, who was also not convinced
by the submissions made by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Even during the proceedings, when the learned Single Judge asked one
of the employees/claimants to show on paper how the points of two way connection of a circuit were connected, he was unable to draw or show it on
paper.
4. Be that as it may, in the backdrop of the submissions made by Mr. Jigar Gadhavi, learned advocate for the appellant about the genuine
discrepancies and the error of law on the part of the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence and testimony of one Fuljibhai Lavjibhai Chaudhari, who
deposed about extra and additional duties and the nature of work he was supposed to perform, it was submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the
real dispute between the parties and appreciate the testimonies, which came to be recorded. According to learned advocate for the appellant, though
pleadings were filed, no such reference was found in the award passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that in other similar organizations like National
Mines Development Corporation Ltd., the workers are given proper job specification according to the work performed by a particular worker.
Therefore, the respondent organization should also provide job specification to the workers as per the duties performed by them. For similar such
duties to be performed, there is a post of Electrical Supervisor. Even there are statutory provisions under the Electricity Act, mandating the
organization and employer to have a qualified Electrical Supervisor. It was submitted that by not providing proper avenues of higher post and in
absence of job description for the duties in question, it has resulted into depriving the workmen of monetary benefits and exploitation by arbitrary
exercise of powers, and therefore, appropriate directions ought to have been given by accepting the demands/claims of the workmen by the Tribunal
as well as the learned Single Judge. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the orders passed
by the learned Single Judge as well as the Tribunal.
5. At the time of admission, short affidavit is filed by General Manager (HR), ONGC and affidavit in rejoinder by the appellant-petitioner, wherein, it is
claimed that it cannot be said that in the year 1999 reference, no employee had remained workman and that there are other employees who are
treated arbitrarily by the employer-ONGC. Further, reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the appellant on the judgment and order passed by
this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8603 of 2000 wherein directions were given to give job specification of AT ROM and Rigman Topman
Association.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, especially when
the admission of the appeal is opposed by Mr. Rajni Mehta, learned advocate, appearing for the respondent-ONGC at the threshold on the ground of
absence of job description and duty cast upon the employer whether to create the post in question, that is, of Electrical Supervisor, the same are not
believed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. We can safely refer to the findings of the
Tribunal, wherein testimonies of witnesses were appreciated and as it transpires from paras 17 and 18, the Tribunal concluded ultimately that no
cogent evidence surfaced on record to believe the claim of the workmen. Even the learned Single Judge, in the context of submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, also referred to specific plea made about all the returns/forms, which were required to be submitted to the Deputy
Director of Mines and Safety and the Log Sheets required to be signed not only by the Electrical Supervisor but also by a higher officer in accordance
with Rule 131 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 156 and Regulations 16 and 23 of OMR 1984. It was also borne out from the record that documents are
only signed by the Electrical Supervisor because of which a post of Electrical Supervisor should be created, is not correct.
As per ONGC Recruitment & Promotion (Regulation), 1980, there is no post of Electrical Supervisor nor any payment is made to any personnel who
has ever signed such log-sheets in the capacity of Electrical Supervisor. Even in the short affidavit filed before this Court by General Manager (HR)
of ONGC, it is submitted that qualification for direct recruitment as Junior Assistant Technician (Electrical) has been Matric with Science and Trade
Certificate in Electrical Trade. Further aspects are also dealt with, which are reproduced here as under:
“3(i) I say and submit that in the Terms of Reference list of the concerned employees was not attached by the Labour Ministry (Central) while
sending Reference as observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 18 at page 67. Therefore it is not known who were the workmen for whom the Terms of
Reference was made in the year 1999.
3(ii) I say and submit that in ONGC promotion is time bound.
4(i) I refer to petitioners Civil Application No. 2436 of 2013 wherein at paragraph 3, it is stated on oath by the Association that by 2013-2014
Association would cease to have workmen. xxx 4(ii) I say and submit that by efflux of time, the petition has become infructuous.
5(i) I humbly say and submit that in the year 1999 Reference, no employee has remained workman particularly when promotion in
Corporation is time bound as stated hereinabove. 5(ii) I say and submit that the petitioners’ 1st witness Vishnubhai Hargovind Patel was
Chargeman when he gave evidence. He became Assistant Engineer (E) Class-II Officer on 1.1.2008. He became Assistant Executive Engineer (E)
Class-I Officer on 1.1.2014. He became Executive Engineer (E) Class-I Officer on 1.1.2018. Subsequently he died.
5(iii) I say and submit that the petitioners’ IInd witness Fuljibhai Lavjibhai Chaudhari was Chargeman on 16.10.2007 when he gave evidence and
became Assistant Engineer (E) Class-II on 1.1.2009 and became Assistant Executive Engineer (E) Class-I post on 1.1.2015 and presently Executive
Engineer (E) Class-I post from 1.1.2019.
5(iv) I say and submit that the petitioners’ IIIrd witness Nandjee Singh was Chargeman when he gave evidence on 9.11.2003 and became
Assistant Engineer (E) Class- II on 1.1.2006 and became Assistant Executive Engineer (E) Class-I post on 1.1.2012 and presently Executive Engineer
(E) Class-I post from 1.1.2016.
5(v) I say and submit that the petitioners’ Ivth witness Dineshkumar Narvdeshwar Pandey was Chargeman when he gave evidence. He became
Assistant Engineer (E) Class-II on 1.1.2008 and became Assistant Executive Engineer (E) Class-I post on 1.1.2014 and presently Executive Engineer
(E) Class post from 1.1.2018.
6(i) I say and submit that activities of ONGC are co-orginated team work for smooth operation and cannot be compartmentalized. In these facts and
circumstances no job specification is given in any Discipline (Para-3 page 71).
6(ii) I say and submit that no job specification is ever demanded by recognized Unions who represent most employees (para 3.2-page 71 â€" para 6(ii)
â€" page 108).
6(iii) I say and submit that no job specification has been given to AT Rom & Rigman Topman
Association as per judgment of Spl.C.a. No. 8603 of 2000 and there is no grievance.
xxx xxx xxxâ€
7. It is submitted that no job description was specifically demanded by recognized union which represented majority of the employees. Even as per the
judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 8603 of 2000, no job specification was given to AT Rom & Rigman Topman Association. The
above averments made on oath persuade us to believe the case of the ONGC and accordingly, we find that refusal to interfere by the learned Tribunal
and the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be faulted with. For ready
reference, we reproduce paras 26 to 29 of the order impugned before this Court, which read as under:
“26. The petitioner are working as Assistant Technician (E) in the respondent organization. The petitioners were compelled to obtain Certificate of
Electric Supervisor and perform the duties of the higher officers as well as work as Electric Supervisor, without any extra allowance or proper job
specification since 1980. Further, as per Rule 131, Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, in an Electrical discipline, the workers have to work only under
supervision of Electrical Supervisor. Hence, it is the duty of respondent organization to create a post of Electric Supervisor. Similarly, it has also been
contended that in other similar organizations like National Mine development Corporation Ltd. There is a post of Electrical Supervisor, hence, the
respondent organization must also have the post of Electrical Supervisor. However, the respondent by denying to have any such post or create the
post, is trying to avoid and circumvent he provisions of the law. Also, that the respondent organization, is in itself violating its own modified R & P
Regulations, 1980 by giving favourable treatment to many workers of various units in different parts of the nation.
27. On the contrary the respondents case is that, the respondent organization is declared as a “oil mine†by the Government of India. Hence, they
have to strictly follow provisions under OMR. Also the issues relating to service are governed by the R & P, 1980. At the relevant point of time in
1980’s, the post of Assistant Technician (E) was an induction level post and qualification was matric with qualification in Diploma in Trade or
Refrigeration and Certificate of Electric Supervisor. Besides, the duties of an Assistant Technician (E) is in nature of general electrician and it is not
that they were compelled to do the duties of higher officers. Also, the organization is working since several years, and neither job specification is given
in either of the disciplines nor it is ever demanded by any other worker or employee, for smooth functioning of the organization.
28. In the present facts, the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of this Court dt. 15.01.2003 passed in SCA No. 8603 of 2000, vide which the
court has upheld the decision of the Ld. Central Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 16 of 1992, vide which the direction was
given to the respondent organization to give job specification to the workers of “Rigman Topman†and “ATROMâ€. However, it is apparent
on the face of it that this decision is not applicable to the case of the petitioners for two reasons, firstly, that the aforesaid decision is in respect of
drilling discipline and secondly, the Division Bench of this Court has granted stay vide its order dt.
29. 08.2003 passed in LPA No. 656 of 2003.
29. Further, the petitioner have claimed parity with the job specification given by National Mines Development Corporation Ltd. And other similar
organizations against the post of Electrical Supervisor also it is alleged that the respondent organization is itself violating its own rules and regulations
by giving preferential treatment to other workers in different units across the nation. However, in view of decision in Chagan Ranchod Kukuva
(supra), because the aforesaid contention as well as the evidence was not placed before the Ld. Tribunal, this court is not inclined to consider it.â€
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Even otherwise, it is
not within the domain of this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the employer/organization to
create a particular post. Notice is discharged. Consequently, connected civil application does not survive and the same stands disposed of.
