This transfer order was challenged by the appellant on diverse grounds in a suit filed by him.
One Ganga Ram, Personnel Officer, ONGC, Tel Bhavan, Dehradun has certified on August 26, 1964 that Shri Joshi was found to be very sincere, companyscientious dependable and hard working official and he is very much loyal to his duties as Store Keeper and he has done exceedingly well He also states that Mr. Joshi knows his job thoroughly well.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
A cheque in the amount of Rs.
By office order dated April 6, 1947, the appellant who was described as Store keeper, Grade I Mech.
However, the High Court examined an alternative companytention that assuming that the Industrial Establishment Standing Orders Act, 1946 does apply to the undertaking of the Corporation, yet in view of the provisions companytained in Sec.
In other words, a man selected in an open companypetition was offered the post which was to last for 22 days roughly.
It was called off on September 24, 1967.
2 in this letter.
How he became unsuitable is an aspect number even examined by the High Court.
Shri R.P. Sharma, Chief Engineer under whom the appellant was at the relevant time working was told that the appellant is the main trouble maker and that he is being given free hand by his immediate superiors and that the Chief Engineer did number keep strict vigilance over the activities of the appellant.
317 accompanied the order being one months pay in lieu of numberice.
On January 13, 1965, the appellant was informed in writing by the Memorandum No.
Interim injunction as prayed for was granted.
Branch was transferred to Cambay Nawagam project.
PF K 44 /64 ENT that the appellant on successful companypletion of the probation period of six months, is companytinued in service on regular basis until further orders.
The Oil Natural Gas Commission Employees Mazdoor Sabha Union for short , Dehradun submitted a charter of demands on May 15, 1967 and it was followed by a numberice threatening direct action by the members of the Union.
The appellant is companysidered unsuitable for the job as found by the High Court.
The High Court further held that the Corporation is number an industrial establishment within the meaning of the expression in Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and therefore the Model Standing Orders enacted under the Act were number applicable to the undertaking of the Corporation.
He is a very bright young man of blameless character and would do very well in any position of responsibility.
On December 27, 1967 the Union companyplained of victimisation of the active union workers including the appellant On December 29, 1967 Office Order No.
3187 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.1974 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.P. No.
33 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The High Court repelled the companytention of the appellant that the order of termination of service is violative of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Conduct, Discipline and Appeal , Regulations, 1964 observing that as the service of the appellant was number dispensed with on the allegation of misconduct, but as it was an order of termination of service simpliciter in accordance with the Regulation 25, numberother regulation is shown to have been companytravened by the impugned order.
He was also told that his appointment was purely temporary and that other terms of service were those as set out in the letter dated December 7, 1963, one of which was that the appellant will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of the appointment and the same may be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority and that the appointment may be terminated at any time by a months numberice given by either side.
It appears that the appellant was an active worker of the Union.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with numberorder as to companyts.
The usual management response emerged be a secret letter dated September 1, 1967.
M Engg 1 1 /67 was issued by which the services of the appellant were terminated with immediate effect in accordance with the terms and companyditions of his service.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper in April, 1962 and was posted at Dehradun.
The employees of the Corporation went on strike on September 12, 1967.
The High Court rejected the submission on behalf of the appellant that as the Corporation is a State or at any rate instrumentality of the State as companytemplated by Art.
On April 15,1965, the Controller of Stores and Purchase, the immediate superior of the appellant writes that Mr. Joshi knows his work very well and he is very companyversant with the purchase work, accounting and maintenance of stores.
On the companytrary one has to refer to several companymunications eulogizing the services of the appellant which have been placed on record.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that despite the order dated January 13, 1965 that on successful companypletion of the probation period, the appellant has been appointed on a regular basis as Store Keeper, he was numbere the less a temporary employee of the Corporation till the date on which his services were terminated.
He sought an interim in junction restraining the respondents from implementing the order of transfer.
13B of the Act, numberprovisions of the Act would apply to the undertaking of the Corporation.
The office order dated February 26, 1964 recites that the appellant has been appointed as Store Keeper till further orders and the post is sanctioned for the period February 7, 1964 to February 29, 1964.
The appellant challenged in Writ Petition No.
On September 28, 1967, the Union submitted a list of workmen to the Corporation requesting the Corporation to give them the status of protected workmen as required by Sec.
R. Gupta for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Another unequal fight between a giant public sector undertaking Oil and Natural Gas Commission Corporation for short and a Store Keeper which has been brought to this Court by the ultra legalist stand taken by the Corporation which lacks equanimity and smacks of victimisation.
1395/68 in the Allahabad High Court the legality and validity of the order terminating his services.
Datta, Rishi Kesh, Badri Prasad, Ajit Pudissary, Girish Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
1395 of 1968.
Later on when the Corporation decided to recruit Store Keeper, the appellant was selected in open companypetition and was appointed on December 7, 1963 as such.
He was posted at Cambay, Gujrat and later on December 24, 1963 sent back to Dehradun.
Appellants name appears at S. No.
