INDRAJIT SINGH Vs. O.N.G.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is being taken up under the directions of the Supreme Court to which the matter had been carried against the mandatory interim order passed by learned brother P. D Desai, J. in this petition.

(2.) The facta of this case are peculiar and uncommon. The petitioner it an employee of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "O.N.G.C." for brevity sake). The petitioner who had joined the O.N.G.C. on 18th Aug., 1958 as a mechanic had come to be promoted in Feb. 1967, by rising successively, to the post of a Chargeman (General Mechanical) In Dec., 1976 the petitioner was selected for deputation to Tanzania for working on the Rigs for drilling. He returned to India in Aug. 1977. On his return, he was reallocated to Ahmedabad Project and was posted in a section known as Drilling Tools Yard Section, since 7-11-77. However, time and again, he was asked to work at the drilling sites on rigs which work he had been doing prior to his going to Tanzania. As he was of and on doing the work which he had done in the post almost uninterruptedly, he thus smouldering under some so-called humiliating treatment raised his voice for the first time against his assignment of the duties in D. T. Y. S., which is when amplified is known as Drilling Tools Yard Section. The petitioner felt that there was absolutely no work for him there at D. T. Y. S. except signing the muster roll, waiting there and drawing the salary. He felt then that he was being side-tracked in this fashion only because he was the Chairman of the Technical Workers' Association, of course, an unrecognised Union but registered under the Trade Unions Act. He, therefore, started making representations in Jan. 1980 and went on sending representations after representations which are Annexure ('A' 'B' 'C' and 'D'V Getting no reply to his said representation, he by his letter dated 10-3-1980 informed the respondents officers of the O.N.G.C. that he would not draw his salary from the O.N.G.C. as he was not provided with any work. This also fell on deaf ears and he, therefore, filed the present petition claiming the following reliefs:-

(3.) The affidavit-in-reply was followed by the affidavit-in-rejoinder which in its term was again followed by the affidavit-in-surrejoinder by the very Senior Drilling Engineer Mr. P. M. Rao.