Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Since Mr. Vakil has taken a preliminary contention to the effect that the petition is required to be dismissed without going into the merits in view of the suppression of facts, the said point is required to be decided first. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioners have not stated anything as to in which manner they were sent by the Home Guards Department to the ONGC. In the original petition, there is an averment that the names of the petitioners were sent from time to time for employment as security guards with the ONGC at its Cambay Project. This fact is clearly stated in paragraph 3 of the petition. By reading the petition, one may get an impression that the names of the petitioners were sent by the Home Guards Department for the purpose of regular recruitment in the ONGC and that there is no mention about the fact that they were deployed or sent by way of deputation in the Commission. In the affidavit-in-reply, which is filed on 6th August, 1986 by one Mr. S.N. Sinha, Project Manager, Cambay Project, which is at page 16 in the compilation, it is stated as under in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 :-

So far as the suppression part is concerned, since there is nothing to show that any of the petitioners was having personal knowledge about the fact that they have been sent by way of deployment or any such specific order, it is not possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that by not mentioning the said fact, the petitioners have wilfully suppressed the said fact from this Court. It is, no doubt, true that, by virtue of the aforesaid letter dated 16.6.1981, some Home Guards were sent either by way of Deployment, or, as stated in the subject, by way of deputation, in the ONGC, but since the list of the petitioners is not attached with the said letter or since there is nothing to show that the petitioners were having personal knowledge that they were sent to the ONGC in a particular manner, it cannot be presumed that there is suppression on the part of the petitioners about the said aspect. It is, no doubt, true that, in the petition, except one Annexure, in which the names of the petitioners and the particulars about the date from which the petitioners are serving, are given, no other material is produced at all along with the main petition.

Mr. Vakil, however, argued that even as per the provisions of the Act, such deployment is possible even for protecting the property and there is nothing wrong if the present petitioners were deputed or deployed in order to protect the property of the Commission as Security Guards.

The said affidavits are controverted by the affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder filed by one C.B. Patel, Deputy Director (P&A), ONGC, Cambay. In paragraph 4, which is at page 61, the said deponent has stated as under :-

13. Mr. Jhaveri, however, vehemently argued that the deployment as per Section 4 of the Act cannot be said to be legal or valid and as per the scheme of the Home Guards Act, no home guard can be sent in a private company or organisation. However, as per the documentary evidence, discussed above, it is clear that the starting point, by which the petitioners or some of the Home Guards were sent to the ONGC, is as per the letter dated 16.6.1981, wherein the word 'deployment' is specifically used and in the subject referred to in the letter, word 'deputation' is also used. I have already discussed the said letter, which is at page 32, dated 16.6.1981. Even if the argument of Mr. Jhaveri is accepted for the time being, that the petitioners could not have been sent by deployment or even by deputation, the petitioners got berth only by virtue of the aforesaid order, as there is nothing on record to show that they were sent in any other manner, like the one which is suggested by Mr. Jhaveri. It is also equally not possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the names were invited for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of Security Guard, in the ONGC and after receiving the names, the ONGC, after selecting the petitioners, gave them appointment. Except the oral argument in this behalf, there is nothing on record to substantiate this say. The Home Guards Department was not expected to work as an employment exchange for sending names for regular recruitment in any organisation. The petitioners were sent from time to time between 1981 and 1986 and as per the chart annexed with the petition at Annexure 'A', some were sent even within a period of one or two years and, ultimately, the petition was filed in 1986 and, it remained pending for such a long time. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioners have continued as security guards with the ONGC since 1986 onwards. Hence, the question which is required to be considered is whether, is there anything on the record to suggest that at the time when the petition was filed, the petitioners were in regular employment of the ONGC. Even as per the documentary evidence on record, it is not possible for me to accept the say of Mr. Jhaveri that the petitioners were treated to be the regular employees of the Commission. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that simply because the petitioners were given duty as per the order, it is not possible for this Court to presume that the petitioners are the employees of the ONGC. Similarly, simply because some affidavits are filed by some of the Home Guard Commandants or an Ex-ONGC Officer, it is not possible for this Court to pronounce that the petitioners have become the employees of the ONGC, especially when there is voluminous evidence available on the record suggesting otherwise.