High Court
Case Details
Reserved on 21.02.2023 Delivered on 02.03.2023 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24716 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sh. Bhagwan Das Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ankush Tandon,Ankush Tandon,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Pramod Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. It appears that petitioner has approached this Court half heartedly so much as that he has failed to bring on record relevant and complete facts which were necessary to adjudicate the prayer made in this writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding Indian Oil Corporation limited (for short ‘Oil Corporation’), respondent to provide him and his family members benefit of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act of 1948’). 2.
Legal Reasoning
and there was a direction by this Court in Writ Petition No. 68874 of 2009 by order dated September 9, 2011 that in case there was a dispute in regard to status of said respondents including the petitioner, the same shall not be decided in above referred suit. The impleaded respondents have filed a counter suit wherein they have claimed that they and their family members be provided medical facilities and other facilities under Act of 1948. 4. The petitioner has not disclosed above facts in this writ petition and neither they have enclosed a copy of counter suit filed by him nor orders passed by this Court. In the aforesaid suit, no issue was framed in regard to status and rights of petitioner being one of respondents therein. It was specifically mentioned in last paragraph of order passed in the suit that counter suit filed by petitioner and other persons was rejected, without going into the merit with liberty to raise the dispute through appropriate proceedings. The said suit was decided on 7.3.2013, however the petitioner neither challenged the said findings nor took benefit granted to initiate appropriate proceedings, instead he has directly approached this Court with 2 of 5 a prayer to extend the benefit of the Act of 1948 as well as direct the respondent Corporation to contribute. 5. It appears that said issues were raised by the petitioner in their counter case, but in very specific terms, the Civil Court has not entered into merit of his claim with liberty to take appropriate remedy or proceedings. For reference, last paragraph of order is mentioned hereinafter-: , कि(cid:22)या ह। उल쭒खनीय ह 09.09.2011 कि(cid:22) ्ቚत्याቕኍ(cid:12) 䨵擶ं० 68874 / 2009 इ䨵擶 बा䃗劉 (cid:22)㟀䂓 (cid:22)ाय:वाही म䂷䀵 नहीं। ता 11 इ䨵擶 वा䃗劉 म䂷䀵 ्ቚत्यቕኍ(cid:12)गण 4 " ग ्ቛारा ्ቚतित䃗劉ावा ्ቚस्तुत कि(cid:22)या गया ति!कि(cid:22)त्䨵擶ीय 䨵擶ुकिवधाय䂷䀵 व अन्य लाⓅᮻ ्ቚ䃗劉ान ह जि(cid:26)䨵擶(cid:22)쭒 अनु䨵擶ार उन्होन쭒 4 ता कि(cid:22)य쭒 (cid:26)ान쭒 (cid:22)㟀䂓 या!ना 11 䃗劉ौरान वा䃗劉 प्ቌ(cid:22)ार मु(cid:22)䃗劉मा बनाय쭒 ग湭教 ह उन(cid:22)쭒 ्ቛारा माननीय उ्ሴ म䂷䀵 माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायलय म䂷䀵 योजि(cid:26)त रिर याति!(cid:22)ा 䨵擶ं० (cid:22)ो यह आ䃗劉쭒䁇㞏 पारिरत कि(cid:22)या गया न्यायालय ्ቛारा कि䃗劉नां(cid:22) ह कि(cid:22) यकि䃗劉 उपरो鴢삟 प्ቌ(cid:22)ार砫親 (cid:22)㟀䂓 हजि䨵擶यत (cid:22)㟀䂓 बाबत (cid:22)ोⒽ㜜 व्यकि鴢삟गत किववा䃗劉 उठाया (cid:26)ाता ह तो उ䨵擶 पर किव!ार किनण :य 䨵擶मुति!त (cid:22)ाय:वाही म䂷䀵 वस्तुत: माननीय कि(cid:22)या (cid:26)ाना !ाकिह湭教 उ्ሴ न्यायालय (cid:22)쭒 आ䃗劉쭒䁇㞏ानु䨵擶ार ्ቚत्यቕኍ(cid:12) 䨵擶ं० 4 व्यकि鴢삟गत किववा䃗劉 (cid:22)ो इ䨵擶 वा䃗劉 म䂷䀵 नहीं उठाया (cid:26)ा 䨵擶(cid:22)ता ह, इ䨵擶 पर किव!ार व कि(cid:22)या (cid:26)ा 䨵擶(cid:22)ता ह। इ䨵擶 तथ्य (cid:22)ो किनण :य 䨵擶मुति!त (cid:22)ाय:वाही म䂷䀵 ही 4 उन(cid:22)쭒 ता 11 ्ቛारा ्ቚतित䃗劉ावा म䂷䀵 मांगा गया अनुतो専瞾 व्यकि鴢삟गत किहतो 䨵擶쭒 䨵擶ंबंतिधत ह। उ鴢삟 ्ቚत्यቕኌቕኍय砫親 (cid:22)쭒 ्ቚतित䃗劉ावा व मांग쭒 ग湭教 अनुतो専瞾 पर इ䨵擶 बा䃗劉 म䂷䀵 किवतिध䨵擶म्मत胸敺 नही ह। अत䦡䥵 इन ्ቚत्यቕኌቕኍय砫親 किव!ार व किनण :य कि(cid:22)या (cid:26)ाना (cid:22)ो इ䨵擶 वा䃗劉 (cid:22)㟀䂓 (cid:22)ाय:वाही म䂷䀵 अनुतो専瞾 ्ቚ䃗劉ान नहीं कि(cid:22)या (cid:26)ा 䨵擶(cid:22)ता ह। अत湭教व ्ቚत्यቕኍ(cid:12) 䨵擶ं० ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत ्ቚतित䃗劉ावा गुण 䃗劉ो専瞾 पर (cid:26)ाय쭒 किबना खारिर(cid:26) कि(cid:22)य쭒 (cid:26)ान쭒 योग्य ह। " किव्ቛान अतिधव鴢삟ा ्ቛारा Ⓟᮻी स्वी(cid:22)ार कि(cid:22)या गया ह। ता 11 (cid:22)쭒 ्ቚत्यቕኍ(cid:12) 䨵擶ं० ता 11 4 6. Sri Varun Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner has repeatedly drawn attention of the Court to findings returned by the Civil Court that the respondent Oil Corporation, being an establishment belonging to the Government of India, therefore, the provisions of Act of 1948 are applicable. Respondent Oil Corporation is under obligation to deposit their share under the 3 of 5 Act of 1948 and that the notifications issued by the Insurance Corporation were held valid. 7. Learned counsel also referred an observation made in aforesaid order that workers appointed through contractor are also legible for the benefits of the Act of 1948, as granted to regular employees of the Oil Corporation and that this finding has attained finality, therefore, the prayer made in this writ petition be allowed. 8. Sri Ankush Tandon, learned counsel for Oil Corporation, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for contractor and Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Insurance Corporation have vehemently opposed submissions of learned counsel for petitioner that status of the petitioner is still under dispute, therefore, it being a disputed question cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction as it requires exchange of pleadings and evidence. Any benefit of the order passed by the Civil Court would be dependent on status of the petitioner which is disputed, therefore he cannot claim any benefit of the said order. There are efficacious and alternative remedy available under the Act of 1948 such as filing a suit under section 75 or initiating proceedings under section 85 of the Act of 1948 if the respondents are failed to pay contribution etc. 9. As discussed above, the petitioner has not come up with full details and further that Civil Court while rejecting counter claim of petitioner has granted liberty to him to take appropriate remedy, however, till date that is even after 10 4 of 5 years, he has failed to take remedy available under the Act of 1948 as referred above. 10. Since petitioner has not placed a copy of counter claim on record and that still disputed, therefore, status of petitioner is relief sought in the present writ petition cannot be allowed and for that petitioner has to relegate himself to alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of Act of 1948 to crystallize his status of employment with respondent Oil Corporation. 11. Therefore petitioner's half hearted attempt to seek relief from this Court is rejected, however, petitioner has still a liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, crystallize his status at first instance and further seek prayer for contribution by the Oil Corporation under the Act of 1948 as well as other benefits under the said Act.
Arguments
S/Shri Varun Sinha and Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner have vehemently argued and placed heavy and entire reliance on findings of a suit filed by the respondent oil corporation against the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short ‘Insurance Corporation’) being ESI case no. 633 of 2016 (164 of 2005). However, for the first time, in the written submissions it has been disclosed that the petitioner was respondent no. 6 in the said suit, though the parentage of the petitioner as mentioned in petition is late Sri Ramraj whereas in suit is late Sri Ramdas. However, still full facts in regard to participation of petitioner in the above referred suit are not brought on record. 3. In this regard, I have carefully perused the order passed in the aforesaid suit. Initially Oil Corporation has filed above suit against Insurance Corporation challenging the letter of coverage and issuance of code. Respondents No. 4 to 11 (petitioner being Respondent-6) were impleaded as respondents
Decision
12. Petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. Order Date :- March 02, 2023 Nirmal Sinha [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5