JIVANBHAI SHIVABHAI GARODA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were serving in the Security Force, a Branch in the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) Baroda, till 1972. Sometime during this year, Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), proposed to Management of IPCL that policy of the Central Government required security of CISF to protect Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? the Industries of the Government. Therefore, Security Force maintained by IPCL was sought to be inducted into CISF. When this proposal was conveyed to the employees of Security Force of IPCL, which included the petitioners and some other employees, induction was protested since it would cause injustice and inconvenience to the petitioners. It was stated that induction into CISF would mean transfer anywhere in India, which was neither conducive nor in the interest of the petitioners. Moreover, they had been engaged in Security Force of IPCL since they had lost their agricultural lands for the formation of IPCL Complex, and they belong to villages surrounding IPCL, meaning thereby, they were not prepared for the induction since it may result in transfers outside IPCL. Director General, CISF, IPCL Unit, Baroda, arranged meeting with IPCL Management and Representatives of the Petitioners. In the meeting, it was assured and promised by Director General, CISF that employees opting for induction in CISF, Vadodara, would not be transferred out of IPCL, Baroda, till promoted up to the rank of Inspector. This settlement was published in authenticated journal "Prerana" of IPCL. Accordingly, petitioners opted for induction in CISF and became its employees. In the absence of assurance against transfer till they are promoted to the rank of Inspector, they would not have opted for induction into CISF. This assurance was honoured by the authorities till 1983. Thereafter, the Commandant holding the charge of IPCL Unit, attempted to commit mischief against the interest of the petitioners giving a go by to the assurances and settlement of 1972 and the petitioners were transferred at his instance to States like Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, etc. Petitioners, belonging to nearby villages and belonging to Class III and IV grade in service, could not move out of IPCL Complex, Baroda. They protested against the transfers and represented to the authorities against the transfers, bringing to their notice the promise they had extended to them and the inconvenience they were likely to suffer. However, no attention was paid, therefore, some of the petitioners filed writ petition (Special Civil Application) challenging the transfers. High Court having said that existence of agreement was highly disputed question of fact, therefore, petition could not be entertained, petitioners filed Civil Suits in Civil Court (S.D.), Baroda, obtained interim injunction restraining the respondents from transferring the petitioners. Later, this interim injunction was confirmed, transfers stayed, till the final disposal of the Suit. The appellate Court dismissed the Appeal against this order.

(2.) Thereafter, the respondents preferred a revision petition before this Court. Allowing the same, the Court directed the Civil Court to expedite the Suits. Civil Court, dismissed the suits, against which First Appeal is pending before the appellate Court, Baroda.

(3.) The petitioners represented to IPCL stating interalia that they belong to poor families. They have no other source of income except salary. They were aggrieved by the turn around of CISF, therefore, they could not be taken back by IPCL. Persistent efforts were made to secure relief from IPCL and the respondents, but nothing was done. Petitioners were constrained to approach the management collectively and protested the injustice meted out to them, sat before IPCL Corporate Office with a bonafide belief that the protest may invite the attention of IPCL Management to their genuine grievances. However, CISF took it serious act of misconduct and indiscipline, and passed orders for the dismissal of petitioners from service without serving notice, charge sheet and offering an opportunity of being heard and defend themselves, thereby committing flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. They submit that Rule 34, Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1969 (CISF Rules 1969) prescribes procedure for inflicting penalty, but the same was not followed, and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioners, the action of the respondents is thoroughly capricious, arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified, therefore, liable to be set aside. Petitioners preferred appeal to Director General, CISF, however, they were asked to file appeal before the DIG, CISF, Western Zone. Accordingly, it was followed up by reminders, but the same had been rejected. They also preferred appeal to Director General, CISF, but the same has also been rejected. Thereafter, they approached the President of India, highlighting injustice caused to them, which was sent to Ministry of Home, Central Government. When none of these authorities took decision on their appeals, representation was submitted to the Prime Minister of India on 13-05-1985. Petitioners submit that orders of dismissals from service be quashed, respondents directed to reinstate them in service with all privileges, benefits and full backwages.