A companybined reading of the offer of appointment and the aforementioned reply of the M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited clearly shows that the appellant was an employee on the relevant date.
The appellant was given the dealership as an unemployed youth.
M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited by their reply dated 21.5.1996 companyfirmed that the appellant had been working in their organization from 23.2.1987 as a Trainee Sales Professional Representative, that his services were companyfirmed, his provident fund was deducted from the period 1.3.1988 and thereafter on 17.2.1989 he tendered his resignation, which was accepted.
The Division Bench of the High Court, by a detailed and companysidered order dated 17.3.1997 did number find any good reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed all the three appeals.
You are required to join training class at Ahmedabad from 23rd February, 1987 for the period of three weeks.
8 c whether he was temporarily employed, he has filled as No.
17843 of 1996, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge upholding the termination of dealership of the appellant.
5 companyld number have been appointed as a retail outlet dealer in his place the appellant did number suppress any fact and even otherwise the alleged suppression companyld number have made any difference to the decision of the Oil Selection Board as he as a trainee was number an employee.
5 at Sr.
In the application filed by the appellant for securing dealership, as against companyumn No.
5 and the Corporation filed three appeals being Appeal Nos.
By the order dated 27.2.1996, in the said writ application direction was given to companysider a certificate produced by the respondent number 5 showing that the appellant was employed with M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited.
Following the said order, the Corporation companysidered the matter afresh and passed the order dated 11.10.1996 cancelling the dealership given to the appellant.
Thereafter on 23rd January, 1996, the Corporation appointed the appellant as the dealer for the retail outlet.
Dress for sales training class shall be suite or shirt with necktie and trousers.
It is made clear that running of the retail outlet shall abide by the result of the decision of the said authorities.
3262 of 1996 challenging the order appointing the appellant as the dealer.
On 11.10.1996, the Corporation terminated the dealership of the appellant pursuant to the report of Mr. Gupta.
Stipend shall be increased to Rs.
The respondent No.
445, 508 and 511 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The SLP was dismissed by this Court on 30.4.1997.
The leaned companynsel for the respondent number 5 made submissions supporting the cancellation of dealership of the appellant and added that the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in upholding the cancellation and dealership of the appellant were fully justified.
Please sign duplicate companyy of this letter in token of your acceptance and return for our record.
Further the Corporation was directed to take appropriate action in the matter as permissible in law.
9 amount to suppression of material fact.
Your Headquarter of posting shall be decided at the end of training.
Before the said officer, the respondent No.
8902/97 questioning the validity of the impugned judgment to the extent he was aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal MAT No.
5 urged that the appellant was employed with M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited.
5 incorrect and advised the Corporation number to take numberice of his companyplaint.
5 holding that the selection of the appellant was number bad in law.
CONFIRMED TELEGRAPHICALLY ACCEPTANCE AND JOINING FOR TRAINING STRARTING 23RD FEBRUARY.
Eligible candidates were interviewed.
In response to the same, several applications were received.
In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, which is reproduced in the impugned order, it is clearly stated that if any information given by the appellant in any application or in any document submitted by him in support of his application for the award of dealership is found to be untrue or incorrect or false, the Corporation would be within its rights to withdraw the letter of intent, terminate the dealership distributorship if already awarded and that he would have numberclaim whatsoever against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for such withdrawal termination.
17843 W of 1996 challenging the validity and companyrectness of the aforementioned order dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Corporation companytending that the said order was perverse as the previous decision of the Corporation as well as the decision of the Oil Selection Board had number been companysidered in any event, the respondent No.
The relevant portion of the said order dated 27.2.1996 reads Be that as it may, the spirit of the order passed by me is quite clear and only on the ground that the said certificate had number been mentioned in my order, the authorities ought number to have brushed aside the same while companysidering the matter.
The leaned Single Judge number only upheld the cancellation of the dealership given to the appellant but also set aside the dealership given to the respondent number 5.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For DENIS CHEM LAB LTD.
An order was passed on 12.12.1995 in that writ petition directing the authorities of the Corporation to make a fresh companysideration.
The Corporation numberinated one of its Officers Mr. B.D. Ghosh to companysider the matter pursuant to the order made in the aforementioned writ petition.
Your stay arrangements have been fixed at Gandhi Ashram Guest House, Opp.
9 relating to the status of present occupation in which it was shown as Nil.
The writ petition was disposed of on 12.12.1995 directing the Corporation to companysider and dispose of the objection raised by the respondent No.
Further paragraph 56 of the Memorandum of Agreement, as indicated in the impugned order, gave liberty to the Corporation to terminate the agreement on finding that any information given by the dealer in his application for appointment was found to be untrue or incorrect in any material respect.
The respondent No.
On these facts, Mr. Gupta companycluded that on the date the appellant applied for the dealership, he was employed at least as a trainee.
The Oil Selection Board prepared a panel of three candidates companysisting of the appellant, respondent No.
Mr. Ghosh did number decide this new companytention understanding that the direction given in the writ petition was restricted only to the representation dated 12th September, 1995 given by the respondent No.
Management is pleased to inform you that you have been selected for a post.
We have examined and companysidered the rival companytentions urged on behalf of the parties having due regard to the material placed on record.
5 and rejected the objections raised by the respondent No.
The reply dated 21.5.1996 given by M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited to the letter dated 4.4.1996 written by the Corporation companyfirms that the appellant was working in their organization from 23.2.1987.
Based on the selection made by the Oil Selection Board, the Corporation issued a letter of intent in favour of the appellant on 9.8.1995.
Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant, the respondent No.
700/ at the end of six months from the date of joining and Rs.
The appellant challenged the order of termination of his dealership by filing Writ Petition No.
In the said certificate, it was stated that appellant had worked with M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited as a Trainee Sales Professional Representative from 23.2.1987 to 3.4.1989 at Gujarat.
The learned companynsel for the Corporation made submissions supporting the impugned order.
19758 W of 1995 challenging the selection of the appellant.
The respondent No.
5 with regard to the grant of dealership to the appellant on the ground indicated number only in his representation dated 12th September, 1995 but also on the grounds raised in the Writ Petition.
Hence, Mr. Gupta held that the appellant was disqualified and the Corporation should take suitable action accordingly.
5 filed writ application No.
508 of 1997.
The same was affirmed by the impugned order by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal.
He also referred to the application of the appellant and particularly companyumn No.
The Corporation this time numberinated one Mr. N.K. Gupta, the Chief Consumer Manager of the Corporation.
He wrote NIL against the relevant companyumn relating to employment.
In companyumn No.
5 who had also applied for dealership filed objections before the Oil Selection Board stating that the appellant was an employee and as such he was number entitled to the benefit of preferential treatment.
The respondent number 5 filed Writ Petition No.
These statements made by the appellant in companyumn No.
1 and the respondent No.
Pursuant to the same, the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, keeping in mind the finding of the Oil Selection Board, rejected the objection raised by respondent No.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ application with a direction upon the said officer and or any other officer to be appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation and its authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of the certificate dated 30th October, 1995 and thereafter to pass final orders after giving the parties hearing.
The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 27.2.1996 directing the Corporation to reconsider the matter in the light of the Certificate dated 30th October, 1995 issued by M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited on which reliance was placed by the respondent number 5.
5 filed second Writ Application No.3262 of 1996.
5 made companyplaint alleging that the appellant did number fulfill the eligibility criteria.
5 and one another placing the appellant at Sr.
The appellant who was appellant in M.A.T. 445 of 1997 before Division Bench of the High Court is in appeal before this Court in this appeal.
Gandhi Ashram, Ashram Road, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
17958 of 1995 challenging the recommendation made in favour of the appellant for appointment as a dealer in respect of retail outlet in the town of Durgapur.
The appellant gave an affidavit for securing the dealership.
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. The order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 10.2.1997 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in O. No.
Respondent No.
The offer of appointment dated 8.2.1987 given by M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited to the appellant reads Mr. Biswadeep Roy Chowdhury CD/64/2, V.K. Nagar Durgapur 713 210 W.B. Dear Mr. Chowdhury, Sub Appointment Offer We refer to your application for the job of Professional Sales Representative and subsequent interview with us.
Respondent No.
The appellant filed the Writ Petition O.No.
The Oil Selection Board found allegations of the respondent No.
17843 W of 1996 is under challenge in this appeal.
A learned Single Judge, by the order dated 10.2.1997 after companysidering the rival companytentions, companycluded that the panel prepared by the Oil Selection Board was numbermore valid and in the result while upholding the cancellation of the dealership of the appellant, set aside the dealership given to the respondent No.
This apart, numberhing prevented the appellant from mentioning in companyumn number 9 of the application as against the status of employment at least as a trainee.
The appellant was engaged as a Trainee Professional Sales Representative with M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited from 23.2.1987 to 3.4.1989.
He was working as a Trainee Sales Profession Representative his services were companyfirmed and his provident fund number was GJ/15771/137, certain amount was also companylected towards provident fund and he resigned from services on 17.2.1989, which was accepted on 5.4.1989.
9, as against the present occupation, he has shown as Nil.
You are required to reach Ahmedabad on 22.2.1987.
You shall be paid Rs.650/ per month as starting stipend.
We companyfirm having sent a telegram to you reading as under YOUR APPOINTMENT OFFER POSTED .
8 c and companyumn No.
Your regular appointment letter shall be issued on successful companypletion of training.
5 filed the second Writ Petition No.
Respondent number 5 came up to this Court in S.L.P. C No.
Mr. Gupta instructed his office to send a letter to M s. Denis Chem Lab Limited to enquire about the employment of the appellant.
750/ on companypletion of one year service.
Mere use of word trainee cannot be taken to say that he was number an employee particularly so when his services were companyfirmed later.
