Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Bhawani Singh, H.K.RATHOD
JIVANBHAI SHIVABHAI GARODA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
S.C.A.7516 of 1992
Decided On : 08/02/2004
Central Industrial security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 14, 7, 8 and 9, 18 - Sec. 8, Sub-sec. (2), Sub-Sec. (2-A) or Sub-sec. (2-B), 15-A, Sub-sec. (2-A) of Sec. 9,, 10, 15-A, 16, 22 (2), 22 - Bombay police Act - Section 26 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 309 - Petitioners were serving in the Security Force a branch in the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited - Sometime during this year, director General Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) proposed to Management of IPCL that policy of the central Government required security of CISF to protect whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment the Industries of the Government - Security force maintained by IPCL was sought to be inducted into - When this proposal was conveyed to the employees of Security Force of IPCL which included the petitioners and some other employees induction was protested since it would cause injustice and inconvenience to the petitioners - It was stated that induction into CISF would mean transfer anywhere in India which was neither conducive nor in the interest of the petitioners they had been engaged in Security Force of IPCL since they had lost their agricultural lands for the formation of IPCL Complex and they belong to villages surrounding IPCL meaning thereby they were not prepared for the induction since it may result in transfers outside IPCL Director General CISF IPCL Unit arranged meeting with IPCL Management and Representatives of the Petitioners it was assured and promised by Director General CISF that employees opting for induction in CISF would not be transferred out of IPCL till promoted up to the rank of inspector. This settlement was published in authenticated journal of IPCL - Accordingly, petitioners opted for induction in CISF and became its employees - In the absence of assurance against transfer till they are promoted to the rank of Inspector they would not have opted for induction into CISF - This assurance was honoured by the authorities till Commandant holding the charge of IPCL unit, attempted to commit mischief against the interest of the petitioners giving a go by to the assurances and settlement of and the petitioners were transferred at his instance to States like - Petitioners belonging to nearby villages and belonging to Class III and IV grade in service could not move out of IPCL complex - Held, Pitching of tent and two of them going on hunger strike - Slogans are of routine kind - They are neither against IPCL nor against - There is no call to other members of CISF unit or ipcl employees to join the strike statement that they were making anti-Government and anti-management slogans and were instigating/inciting other serving Force personnel of the Unit to resort to fast unto death and unite to launch agitation for reversal of orders is without verification by the commandant - Petitioners were relieved from service they do not possess arms and ammunition - Assistant Commandant suggests immediate departmental action to avoid aggravation in situation and to maintain discipline - He does not suggest dispensation of inquiry - He does not say holding of inquiry is impracticable - He does not say the situation is tense - He does not say other members of CISF and IPCL joined strike at their instigation/incitement nor it has happened - He does not say witnesses may not come forward due to apprehension to their lives witnesses in this case could be high officials of IPCL and CISF who could not be put to intimidation - Circumstances do not make out extraordinary case for taking recourse to Rule of CISF rules - It seems inquiry has been dispensed with for no other reason but to get rid of the petitioners and render the appeals infructuous - Power under Rule of cisf Rules has not been exercised properly genuinely to meet with extraordinary situation rather it is colourable exercise of power action taken is - Appellate authority also failed to correct the error - petitioners is not in accordance with law therefore - Petitioners are reinstated on the posts which they were holding prior to their dismissal - They shall be deemed to be in continuous service throughout and entitled to all consequential benefits including salary and allowances revised from time to time and promotions - It is declared that the quarters in their occupation shall not be - There shall be costs be paid to the petitioners - Ordered Accordingly.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS were serving in the Security Force, a branch in the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) Baroda, till 1972. Sometime during this year, director General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), proposed to Management of IPCL that policy of the central Government required security of CISF to protect whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? the Industries of the Government. Therefore, Security force maintained by IPCL was sought to be inducted into cisf. When this proposal was conveyed to the employees of Security Force of IPCL, which included the petitioners and some other employees, induction was protested since it would cause injustice and inconvenience to the petitioners. It was stated that induction into CISF would mean transfer anywhere in India, which was neither conducive nor in the interest of the petitioners. Moreover, they had been engaged in Security Force of IPCL since they had lost their agricultural lands for the formation of IPCL Complex, and they belong to villages surrounding IPCL, meaning thereby, they were not prepared for the induction since it may result in transfers outside IPCL. Director General, CISF, IPCL Unit, Baroda, arranged meeting with IPCL Management and Representatives of the Petitioners. In the meeting, it was assured and promised by Director General, CISF that employees opting for induction in CISF, Vadodara, would not be transferred out of IPCL, Baroda, till promoted up to the rank of inspector. This settlement was published in authenticated journal "prerana" of IPCL. Accordingly, petitioners opted for induction in CISF and became its employees. In the absence of assurance against transfer till they are promoted to the rank of Inspector, they would not have opted for induction into CISF. This assurance was honoured by the authorities till 1983. Thereafter, the Commandant holding the charge of IPCL unit, attempted to commit mischief against the interest of the petitioners giving a go by to the assurances and settlement of 1972 and the petitioners were transferred at his instance to States like Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, etc. Petitioners, belonging to nearby villages and belonging to Class III and IV grade in service, could not move out of IPCL complex, Baroda. They protested against the transfers and represented to the authorities against the transfers, bringing to their notice the promise they had extended to them and the inconvenience they were likely to suffer. However, no attention was paid, therefore, some of the petitioners filed writ petition (Special Civil application) challenging the transfers. High Court having said that existence of agreement was highly disputed question of fact, therefore, petition could not be entertained, petitioners filed Civil Suits in Civil court (S. D.), Baroda, obtained interim injunction restraining the respondents from transferring the petitioners. Later, this interim injunction was confirmed, transfers stayed, till the final disposal of the Suit. The appellate Court dismissed the Appeal against this order.
( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the respondents preferred a revision petition before this Court. Allowing the same, the Court directed the Civil Court to expedite the Suits. Civil court, dismissed the suits, against which First Appeal is pending before the appellate Court, Baroda.
( 3 ) THE petitioners represented to IPCL stating interalia that they belong to poor families. They have no other source of income except salary. They were aggrieved by the turn around of CISF, therefore, they could not be taken back by IPCL. Persistent efforts were made to secure relief from IPCL and the respondents, but nothing was done. Petitioners were constrained to approach the management collectively and protested the injustice meted out to them, sat before IPCL Corporate office with a bonafide belief that the protest may invite the attention of IPCL Manage
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
