Two other appeals being Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are former officers and employees of the Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd., which has since been amalgamated with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
The companyplaint of the petitioners is with regard to the inter se fitment of the officers and employees of the Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. and the other two Companies which have also been amalgamated with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., namely, ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and Lube India Ltd. In 1974, the Undertakings in India of ESSO Eastern Inc. that is, ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. for short ESSO and Lube India Ltd. for short LIL were acquired by the ESSO Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, 1974 and vested in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for short HPCL , a Government Company.
In 1977, the shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. and Undertakings in India of Caltex India Ltd. were acquired by the Caltex Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. and the Undertakings in India of Caltex India Ltd. Act, 1977 and vested in Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. for short CORIL , a Government Company.
426 of 1978.
3212 of 1979 and Civil Appeal No.
If they had any objection to the scheme, they would have surely made a representation to this Court in the said Civil Appeal No.
On May 5, 1978, by the order of the Company Law Board, CORIL was amalgamated with HPCL.
The said Committee was to make recommendation inter alia on the following fitment in equivalent Groups criteria to be adopted for determination of seniori ty and fixation of inter se seniority and placement in appropriate positions.
By an order dated June 17, 1978, the Central Government appointed a one man Committee of Mr. B.B. Tandon, IAS Retd. ,
The said order is as follows The petitioner Corporation will be at liberty to frame a scheme, if it wishes to do so, in accordance with the judg ment of the High Court under appeal.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
These representations were companysidered by the Government and after several meetings between the Chief Executives of HPCL and CORIL and the Secretary and other senior officers of the Ministry and Bureau of Public Enter prise, Government formulated the guidelines for rationalisa tion and companymunicated its decision to both CORIL and HPCL by its letter dated July 28, 1979.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions C Nos.
With a view to giving a further opportunity to the employees of erstwhile ESSO and CORIL group of officers, the Chairman of HPCL appointed two Committees to submit their recommendations as to the equiva lence and fitment of existing officers on the basis of IOCs scales of pay in accordance with the Government guidelines.
The further case of HPCL is that without exception every one of the CORIL Management Employees accepted the fresh terms offered to them by the said letter dated July 7, 1980.
Accordingly, an offer letter dated July 7, 1980 together with the terms and companyditions of new appointment as per the rationalisation scheme was sent to each of the employees.
HPCL companysidered the reports submitted by the said two Com mittees and also different methods of fitment and equiva lence of different pay scales of ESSO, LIL and CORIL with the pay scales of IOC and, keeping in view all these factors including the submissions made by the Officers Association through their representations, HPCL approved the proposal of rationalisation of pay scales, allowances and perquisites.
35 186 of 1979 were also filed by the officers of CORIL and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. respectively.
Rajinder Sachar and K.T. Anantharaman for the Petitioners.
331 47 of 1984.
If the scheme is framed, it will number be implemented for a period of three weeks from the date of its framing and the respondents will be at liberty within the period of 3 weeks to apply to this Court for stay.
3214 of 1979 which was then pending.
Narayan B. Shetty, G.B. Pai, S.S. Shroff, Mrs. P.S. Shroff, Miss Girja Krishan, S.A. Shroff, Mrs. Pallavi Shroff, O.C. Mathur and A.M. Dittia for the Respondents.
This order will be without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the petitioner Corporation in the appeal.
