IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 30953 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt Anjana Mittal ...Petitioner
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) ...Respondents

LIST OF DATES
15.01.1966 Office Memo of Respondent for procedure to be adopted w.r.t. conversion of temporary
posts into permanent posts vis-a-vis declaration of employees as permanent. (Pg. 20)

10/14.03. Office Memo of Respondent issued reviewing scheme of permanency as per OM dt.
1980 15.01.1966 granting advantages of a permanent employee. (Pg. 203, Counter in SLP (C)
No. 548/2019)

12.05.1983 Petitioner appointed to post of Asstt. Grade-III in Respondent Corporation in temporary

post. (Pg. 181, SLP of ONGC Vol.II)

13.09.1983 The Petitioner was given forms for grant of Pension, Gratuity, CPF etc. (Pg. 206-207,
Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

14.09.1983 Petitioner was granted CPF number. (Pg. 208, Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

06.06.1984 Office order issued by Respondent confirming the probation of the Petitioner. (Pg. 211,
Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

20.07.1988 The Petitioner conceived but due to a lot of medical problems she was on a medical leave
which was duly approved by the doctors of Respondent corporation. (this leave has been
subsequently regularised, Pg. 45, SLP of AM). The Petitioner gave birth to a female child
.

Petitioner again had a miscarriage and was hospitalised while the child suffered meningitis
because of exposure of the Petitioner and child during travel to her place of work.

1989 The Petitioner then conceived a girl child due to which she took maternity leave which was
duly sanctioned by the competent Authority.

1990 The Petitioner conceived for the third time but went through medical complications during
her pregnancy and post delivery of the 2nd child.The child did not survive. (Pg. 44, SLP of
AM)

Petitioner was granted ex-post facto sanction of leave for absence on medical grounds.

06.01.1990 Petitioner was promoted to the post of Asstt. Grade-II. (Pg. 210, 212, Counter in SLP (C)
No. 548/2019)

12.10.1992 The Group General Manager of ONGC issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner
regarding various leaves availed by her.
 The Petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 12.10.1992 and also appeared before
the competent Authority of the Respondent corporation.

On 14.10.1992 the Competent Authority regularised her leaves and also opined that the
case of the Petitioner should be considered in a sympathetic and lenient manner because
of the various medical problems faced by her. (Pg. 45, SLP of AM)

01.12.1992 Petitioner examined by Medical Board after she became fit. (Pg. 215, SLP of ONGC Vol II)

01.12.1993/ The Petitioner due to her medical condition remained on medical leave from 1.12.1993 to
25.2.1994 30.12.1993 and joined back on 31.12.1993 by duly submitting her leave application to the
Respondent supported by medical certificate.

The Petitioner again went on leave from 03.1.1994 to 25.02.1994 by duly submitting her
leave application to the Respondent supported by medical certificate.

23.02.1994 Petitioner was informed by the Petitioners that since her leave had not been sanctioned,
she should join back her duty from 28.02.1994. (Pg. 218, SLP of ONGC Vol II)

28.02.1994 Petitioner reported back to duty but she was not assigned any work. She made a complaint
about the same. (Pg. 223-225 Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

26.05.1994 The Respondent issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner asking her why her services
(Pg. 213- should not be terminated since she committed misconduct of unauthorised absence.
215, On receiving the show cause notice, the Petitioner came to know about the adverse and
Counter in perverse finding of the alleged panel of doctor.
SLP (C) The Petitioner was not given an opportunity of rebutting the findings of the panel of doctors
No. nor was allowed to any lead documentary evidence in support of the same.
548/2019)
Petitioner complained that medical board report was not supplied to the Petitioner and only
the gist was reproduced by the Respondent in the show cause notice. (Pg. 53, SLP of
ONGC Vol I)

01.06.1994 Reply of the Petitioner to SCN dated 26.05.1994. (Pg. 216, Counter in SLP (C) No.
548/2019)

20.06.1994 Petitioner served with another show cause notice. (Pg. 217-218, Counter in SLP (C) No.
548/2019)

28.06.1994 Reply of the Petitioner to SCN dated 20.06.1994. (Pg. 219-222, Counter in SLP (C) No.
548/2019)

28.06.1994 Petitioner wrote complaint letter to the Respondent. (Pg. 223 Counter in SLP (C) No.
548/2019)

30.06.1994 Petitioner submitted representation that neither any work was assigned to her nor was she
permitted to mark her attendance. (Pg. 224-225, Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

01.07.1994 Without holding departmental enquiry or giving any personal hearing, the Petitioner was
terminated from services with retrospective effect from 01.12.1993 (Pg. 226, Counter in
SLP (C) No. 548/2019)
15.11.1994 Petitioner filed an appeal before the Director (Personnel) for setting aside termination order
dt. 01.07.1994. (Pg. 227-237, Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

16/21. Petitioner was informed that her appeal was dismissed and a bank note in lieu of one
02.1995 month’s salary was sent.(Pg. 238-239, Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

1995 Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 12121 of 1995 before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad against the impugned order of termination.

The aforesaid writ petition was transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand and re-
numbered as Writ Petition No. 6742 of 2001

26.08.2004 Hon’ble High Court of Nainital dismissed the Writ Petition of the Petitioner.

29.06.2006 Petitioner challenged the the order dated 26.08.2004 before the Division Bench of the
Hon’ble High Court by way of LPA No. 55/2004.
The said LPA was disposed of holding that the Petitioner was a workman and appropriate
forum was under the ID Act.
Also, the HC held that the Labour Court will not take delay as a ground to reject the
reference. (Pg. 60, SLP of ONGC Vol I)

22.10.2008 After failure of conciliation, dispute referred to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court for adjudication.

27.01.2009 Petitioner filed Claim Petition before the Labour Court. (Pg. 40-63, SLP of AM)

Petitioner was unemployed from the date of her termination.(Pg. 25, 51, 63, 163 SLP of
AM). Application and affidavit under Section 17-B of the IDA Act filed by the Petitioner. (In
SLP of ONGC)

22.09.2009 Petitioner received information under RTI Act stating that none of the employees working in
ONGC have been declared permanent. (Pg. 240-241, Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019)

June 2010 The Petitioner (CW1) gave evidence by Affidavit, reiterating her grievance.(Pg. 64-73, SLP
of AM)

15.06.2012 Petitioner received information from Respondent under RTI Act stating PARs for the year
1983-1987 were not available in the PAR Section(Pg. 242, Counter in SLP (C) No.
548/2019)

30.07.2012 Petitioner received information from Respondent under RTI Act stating PARs for the year
1988-1992 were not available in the PAR Section.(Pg. 243 Counter in SLP (C) No.
548/2019)

Witnesses from both sides:

1. Anjana Mittal examined: a) Anjana Mittal as WW1, b) Shri Badri Nath Vasandi, WW2
c) AK Mittal (Pg. 475-485, SLP of ONGC Vol III)
2. ONGC Examined: a) Dr. SP Mandal, MW1, b) Dr. Abha Mazumdar, MW2, c) Sh
Vikram Malhotra, MW3 (Pg. 486-505, SLP of ONGC Vol III)

28.06.2013 Cross examination of the Petitioner stating that she has never remained on leave without
any sanction. (Pg. 76, SLP of AM)
11.09.2013 One Mr. Badri Nath Vasandhi (WW-2/A) who is Ex. Manager (HR) ONGC deposed the
(Pg. 77-83, following:
SLP) 1. Termination of the Petitioner is violative of the norms of ONGC. (Pg. 77-78, SLP of AM)
2. The rules applied to terminate the service of the Petitioner is only applicable to temporary
employee and not on permanent employee like the Petitioner. (Pg. 78, SLP of AM)
3. The order of termination cannot be delegated and in the case of the Petitioner, the
termination order has been passed by the officer subordinate to the Competent Authority.
(Pg. 78, SLP of AM)
4. Termination order cannot be made from a retrospective effect. (Pg. 78-79, SLP of AM)
5. Major part of her leave was sanctioned by Respondent and her medical certificates were
counter signed by the ONGC doctors of Delhi. (Pg. 81, SLP of AM)

13.11.2013 Mr. Badri Nath Vasandhi (WW-2/A) deposed that Petitioner was entitled to all the benefits of
(Pg. 87-88, a permanent employee as per the welfare policy of ONGC and Petitioner had the right to
SLP of AM) dictate the terms of her procedure of termination. (Pg. 88, SLP of AM)

05.06.2014 One Mr. Vikram Malhotra MW-3, Dy. Gen. Manager (HR) in-charge, HRER, ONGC deposed
(Pg. 90-93, on behalf of the Respondent. The Purpose of his deposition was to show that the Petitioner
SLP, AM) was not a Permanent employee in the Respondent Corporation.

21.08.2014 He has deposed that leaves of the Petitioner upto 1992 were sanctioned. (Pg. 94, SLP of
AM)
No complaint has been lodged against the doctor who had issued medical certificate to the
Petitioner. (Pg. 95, SLP of AM)

16.01.2015 The witness has agreed to the fact that the problems of the Petitioner related to
gynaecologist and orthopaedic expert. (Pg. 96, SLP of AM)

08.02.2017 He has deposed that he has joined the said post only in May 2016 and prior to this he was
an HR incharge in 2012 and then came to know about the case. And no file is present on
record to show whether any personal hearing was given to the Petitioner. (Pg. 99, 100, 101
SLP of AM)

07.08.2017 The Ld. Tribunal passed an award and set aside the order of termination of Petitioner and
(Pg. found the same to be illegal and void and order for reinstatement of the Petitioner on the
102-127, said post with all consequential benefits and 100% back-wages(Pg. 61, SLP of ONGC Vol
SLP of AM) I)
● Petitioner filed accommodation form, CPF Form, family pension scheme form etc.
which shows that she was a permanent employee. (Pg. 63)
● After promotion, there was no complaint regarding mode of working of Petitioner.
(Pg. 78)
● Decision was taken by the apex body of the management whereby officials of
temporary post for three years to be made permanent. (Pg.79)
● Employees who have completed three years and have satisfactorily completed
probation period will be given advantages applicable to permanent employees. (Pg.
79)
● Letter dated 09.02.1994 clarifies that there is no practice of declaring an employee
 as permanent in the Corporation and those who have completed three years service
and competed formalities will be given facilities eligible for permanent employees.
(Pg.80)
● Unauthorized absence of Petitioner was regularized. (Pg. 83)
● No memo issued to Petitioner regarding her mode of working. (Pg. 84)
● She was examined by medical board when she was quite well. (Pg. 89)
● Findings of medical board never communicated to petitioner.(She came to know
about the adverse comments only through memo). (Pg. 89)
● Action of Respondents were in violation of the principles of natural justice. (Pg. 91)
● Appeal against termination order was dismissed by Respondents in a perfunctory
manner. (Pg. 94)
● Since Petitioner fell within the definition of a ‘workman’ and Respondent is an
‘industry’, domestic enquiry ought to be conducted. (Pg. 95)
● Opinion of medical board irrelevant as no expert present on the panel. (Pg. 98)
● Action of Respondent imposing punishment of termination does not commensurate
with the gravity of misconduct. (Pg. 101)
● Statement of MW1 clearly shows that she was suffering from ailment. (Pg. 101)
● MW3 could not give satisfactory reply when asked how the Petitioner is not covered
under the category of permanent employee (Pg. 102)
● Services of Petitioner could not be terminated by General Manager, since she was
appointed by Group general Manager (higher post). (Pg. 103)

27.11.2017 WP filed by Respondents. (Pg. 128-144, SLP of AM)

25.02.2018 Petitioner filed Counter-affidavit in WP No. 3015/2017. (Pg. 137, SLP of ONGC Vol I)

14.06.2018 Hon’ble High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and modified the award of the Labour
Commissioner with regard to back wages, by reducing it from 100% to 30%. HC did not
interfere on other aspects (Pg. 1, SLP of ONGC Vol I)

● Petitioner served in ONGC for more than 11 years. Ld. Labour Court has recorded a
categorical finding that Petitioner cannot be treated to be a temporary employee.
Since it is not the case of the Respondent that such finding is perverse, it cannot be
interfered with under article 227 of the Constitution. (Pg. 7)
● Reliance placed by the Respondent upon Regulation 24 cannot be sustained in view
of the judgment of DK Yadav v JMA Industries. The services of the Petitioner could
not be terminated without holding a domestic enquiry as charges of “habitual
absenteeism” were levelled against her (Pg. 9)
● The delay in making the reference cannot be attributed to the Petitioner, she was
continuously vigilant. (Pg. 10)
● Even in a case of termination simpliciter, the rule of Audi Alteram Partem has to be
followed.(Pg.18)
● It is not a case of termination simpliciter, the Respondent could have requested to
be granted permission to lead evidence to prove charges against the Petitioner, but
no such request was made. (Pg. 19)
● Period of absence was regularised by Respondent itself by converting the same into
leave. (Pg. 19)
● Charges in the show case notice are vague and ambiguous. (Pg. 19)
 ● Back-wages reduced to 30%

29.10.2018 Petitioner preferred the present SLP because the Hon’ble High Court modified the award of
the Tribunal, reducing back wages to 30% without assigning any reasons.

Respondent, aggrieved of the award, preferred cross-SLP. (Pg 21, SLP of ONGC Vol I).

03.12.2018 Order passed by this Court in present SLP:

“Since the order of termination issued in the year 1994 was set aside by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Karkardooma and the decision was
rendered in favour of workman on 07.08.2017, Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior advocate
submits that at least from that date onwards, the petitioner should have been held entitled
to one hundred per cent back wages. Issue notice, returnable in three weeks. Dasti in
addition. List in third week of January, 2019. Since the order of Labour Court had also
directed that the petitioner be reinstated, we direct the respondents to comply with that
direction.”

13.12.2018 Application filed by Respondent seeking modification of order dt. 03.12.2018. (SLP of AM)

04.02.2019 Order passed by this Court in present SLP:

“Since cross special leave petitions have been filed challenging the same judgment and
order dated 14.06.2018, we list these matters for final disposal on 06.03.2019. Mr. J.P.
Cama, learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner in SLP (C) No.30953/2018 has
not been given reinstatement as of now and since the matters are pending consideration
before this Court, the rigor of order dated 03.12.2018 be lessened. We will consider all the
issues on the next date of hearing. In the meantime, the operation of order dated
03.12.2018 passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.30953/2018 shall be kept in abeyance. List
the matters on 06.03.2019. In the meantime, the parties are at liberty to exchange the
pleadings.”

26.02.2019 Petitioner filed reply to the Application filed by Respondent seeking modification of order dt.
03.12.2018. (SLP of AM)

26.02.2019 Application under Section 17-B of the IDA Act filed by the Petitioner. (In SLP of ONGC)

26.02.2019 Petitioner filed Counter Affidavit: (in SLP of ONGC)

a. Employees of ONGC are entitled to avail leave of 118 days (Gazetted
Holidays and Weekends) in addition to casual leave, 12 days earned leave,
30 days half pay leave, 12 days commuted leave, 480 dyas extraordinary
leaves during entire employment period, 90 days maternity leave etc. (Pg.
182-183, Para 6)
b. The alleged leave of 140 days taken by the Petitioner in 1994 were not
agitated by the Respondent before the Industrial Tribunal. (Pg. 184, Para 6)
c. Petitioner was served the SCN and termination order while she was on duty.
Petitioner's presence was not marked while she was attending office and
doing diary dispatch work. (Pg. 184, Para 6) [See 223-225, Counter in SLP
(C) No. 548/2019]
d. Petitioner was not covered by Regulation 24 of the ONGC Regulations, 1975
but by circular dt.10.14/03.1980. [See 203, Counter in SLP (C) No.
548/2019] Same was reiterated in the Award of the Industrial Tribunal at
 Para 38 and 39, Pg. 125, SLP. Petitioner's SCN reflects that her absence
was considered as alleged misconduct, and so her termination could not be
called as a ‘termination simpliciter’. (Pg. 185-186,188-190 Para. 7, 8)
e. Petitioner repeatedly raised the issue of her attendance not being marked by
the Respondent vide letter dt. 28.06.1994 and 30.06.1994. (Pg. 186-187,
Para 8) [See 224-224, Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019]
f. Management of the Respondent terminated the services of the Petitioner
with retrospective effect through an officer lower in position than the
Appointing Authority. (Pg. 187, 193 Para 8, 10)
g. Dismissal of the appeal of the Petitioner which she raised against her
termination order was dismissed in a perfunctory manner and never
communicated to her (Pg. 188, 195 Para 8, 11)
h. Findings of the Medical Board were never communicated to the Petitioner till
she was issued a memo in 1994. It is admitted by the witnesses of the
management that Petitioner was examined after she had regained her health
and further there was no expert on the panel and the same has been noted
by the Industrial Tribunal in Para 34 and 37 of the Award. (Pg. 194, 197-198
Para 11)
i. Petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing which was duly noted by
the Ld. Labour Court in Para 28 and 29 of the Award. (Pg. 194-195, Para 11)
j. The Hon’ble High Court observed in its order dt. 29.06.2006 that the Tribunal
will not be influenced by the judgment of the High Court and delay will not be
a reason for rejecting the reference. Management cannot challenge the
award on the ground of delay. (Pg. 198-199 Para 11)
k. There is no practice of declaring employees as permanent in ONGC The
petitioner has completed the requisite number of years in service and was
thus a permanent employee with the Respondent. (Pg. 200, Para 12) [See
240-241 Counter in SLP (C) No. 548/2019]
l. There are no adverse entries ever recorded in the ACRs of the Petitioner.
(Pg. 200 Para 13)