Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

appellants would point out that no disputes whatsoever have been raised by the respondents that the respondent BPCL is an "other authority" within the meaning of the definition of "State" contained in Art.12 of the Constitution of India and that their only dispute is that an alternative remedy of adjudication by the forum created under the I.D. Act is available and that has to be resorted to and further that evidence has to be taken, etc. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that in the instant case, no evidence is required to be taken and the main issue is as to whether the action of the respondent BPCL in continuing to insist to enforce the restrictions in Ext.P-1 OM dated 19.11.2020, even after the issuance of the latter Ext.P-2 OM dated 8.1.2021, is reasonable and fair or whether it is arbitrary or capricious and also as to whether the said impugned action of the respondent BPCL is in consonance with the specific directives issued by the respondent Union Government as per the latter Ext.P-2 OM dated 8.1.2021.

15. It is pointed out by the learned Advocates for the appellants that though they have also raised certain other contentions that prior notice under Sec.9A Industrial Disputes Act has not been issued in this case and that the continued imposition of the WA 718, 750 & 786 OF 2021 - : 24 :-

restrictions in Ext.P-1 OM as far as the workmen category is concerned, would also amount to breach of the settlement. Those contentions have been made to highlight that the impugned action of the respondent BPCL to the extent it affects the workmen category personnel would also be violative of the provisions contained in the ID Act. That even de hors such contentions based on the ID Act, the impugned action of the respondent BPCL in continuing to insist to enforce the restrictions in Ext.P-1, even after the issuance of Ext.P-2, would be eminently and substantially a public law cause of action and therefore, amenable to public law remedy by way of judicial review of the impugned action rendered by the respondent BPCL, etc.

supervisors of Central PSUs. What is involved thereafter is a paradigm shift in the scenario. The respondent BPCL does not even for a moment contend that the Union Government has no competence to issue a subsequent norm as per Ext.P-2 dated 8.1.2021. On the other hand, the specific case of the respondent BPCL is that they have taken the impugned action only on the basis of the initial norm as per Ext.P-1 issued by the respondent Union Government. When no dispute whatsoever has been raised by the respondent BPCL as to the jurisdictional competence of the respondent Union Government to issue Ext.P-2 O.M. dated 8.1.2021 and when the very basis of the impugned action is on the basis of the directives issued by the Union Government as per Ext.P-1 dated 19.11.2020 and later, when the very same authority (Union Government) issued subsequent norm as per Ext.P-2 dated 8.1.2021, then the continued insistence by the respondent BPCL to freeze the DA on the basis of Ext.P-1 norms, as far as the workmen category personnel is concerned, would be nothing but rank unreasonableness, arbitrariness and capriciousness. There is no dispute that similarly situated Central Public Sector Oil Companies like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited WA 718, 750 & 786 OF 2021 - : 48 :-

and to evade their liability.

43. Assuming that, if the initial action of the respondent BPCL on the basis of Ext.P-1, is otherwise justifiable in terms of Clause 12(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement, then there cannot be any doubt that subsequent guidelines of the respondent Union Government as per Ext.P-2 dated 8.1.2021 is also a guideline of the Government of India, within the meaning of Clause 12(d). That being so, the respondent BPCL was obliged to comply with the requirements of Ext.P-2 norms in any view of the matter. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent BPCL, on the basis of estoppel and the parity principles of wage structure and benefits of workmen vis-à-vis the managerial staff etc., could have been tenable, if the impugned restriction and freezing of DA was done by the respondent BPCL independently and de hors Ext.P-1 or if due approval had been secured from the respondent Union Government, even after the issuance of Ext.P-2. Hence, we are not impressed with the abovesaid arguments raised by the respondent BPCL on the basis of estoppel, pay parity principles, etc. Further, for arriving at these conclusions in the adjudication in the public law remedy, we have not relied on any materials other than the one admitted by both sides in WA 718, 750 & 786 OF 2021 - : 53 :-