C V PILLAI Vs. ONGC DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . It has been urged in all seriousness amazing as it may sound that hostile and obnoxious discrimination can be practiced by the State with impunity not only without qualms of conscience but even without violating the constitutional mandate embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India if it is blessed by an employees union which is supposed to safeguard the interest of all the employees and not to promote the interest of some at the case of others. The argument is that Constitutional safeguards can be waived by the employees if the Union representing then nods its head to the arrangement. In other words the problem which had surfaced in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by 125 employees of the O.N.G.C. employed at Central Workshop Baroda is whether the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India can be annulled from time to time and can be crazed provided the consent or concurrence of the Union to which the employees belong is forthcoming.

(2.) . In Central Workshop of the O.N.G.C. at Baroda recruitment can be made by two modes namely (1) direct recruitment and (2) recruitment by transfer from other department of O.N.G.C. Till September 25 1976 all the employees employed at Central Workshop Baroda comprising of employees recruited from both the sources used to be paid allowance styled as workshop allowance. The said allowance was paid to all the employees irrespective of their source of recruitment that is to say regardless of whether they were direct recruits (first source) or transfer recruits (second source). On September 25 1976 a settlement was arrived at between the Union of Employees and ONGC. Under this settlement it was decided as under:

(3.) . During the pendency of the petition the ONGC has made amends to 75 out of 125 petitioners who were recruited by transfer from other departments of ONGC subsequent to April 1 1975 In so far as they are concerned ONGC gas granted the request and agreed to accord them similar treatment as was accorded to Pre-April 1 1975 recruits by merging the workshop allowance with their basic pay. So far as they are concerned their grievance does not survive any more in view of this subsequent development. In so far as remaining 57 employees (who were appointed between April 1 1975 and September 25 1976 by direct recruitment are concerned the ONGC does not agree to the request for merging workshop allowance paid to them with the basic pay. The only argument advanced is that the settlement arrived at between the Union and the management in time provides that in so far as they are concerned the workshop allowance shall be treated as personal pay and that it shall be absorbed in further increments. The question is whether ONGC can deny to these employees similar treatment as is accorded to rest of the employees.