Refineries Division

NOTE

Ref. No. RHQ/LEGAL/Ref. Hqrs Date 13.12.2018

Sub: Report of HR cases (Service Matters) of Refineries Division

Further to the report dated 13.12.2018 (Flag-1), report of HR Cases (Service Matters) pertaining
to Refineries Division for the month ending November 2018 is placed herewith.
105 (one hundred and five) HR related cases are pending as on date. (GR – 7, BR– 10, JR – 18,
HR – 33, MR -6, PR -10, AOD -6, BGR -6, PDRP-1, KLO-1,RHQ -7). From the earlier monthly
report, seven (7) cases, 6 (six) cases pertaining to HR and one (1) case pertaining to MR, has
been disposed off and five (5) cases, two (2) cases pertaining each to PR and RHQ and one (1)
case pertaining each to GR has been included.

Analysis:

1. Out of 40 (forty) cases pending for more than 10 (ten) years, 20 (twenty) cases have been
disposed in last 1 (one) year.
Action Taken: Urgent applications have been filed in suitable matters and Units are advised
to explore the options for settlement or early disposal of cases of remaining 20 (twenty)
cases.

2. 9 cases (S. Nos. 1 to 9) are filed by IOCL for recovery of amount from dismissed employees
amounting to total of Rs. 40 lakhs (approx.). It is observed that 5 cases (S. No 1 to 5) are at
Initial Stage; 1 case (S. No. 6) is at Evidence Stage; and 2 cases (S. No. 7 to 8) are at
Hearing Stage. 1 case (S. No. 9) pertaining to KLO is under proposal for out-of-court-
settlement. However, the party has shown reluctance for settlement. The matter shall be
resumed in court.
Action Taken: The amounts of recovery are not substantial (1.90 lakhs to 11 lakhs) to
enable us to insist upon the court for prioritizing the matters, therefore, the Units were
instructed to explore options for settlement of such cases in consultation with legal counsel
and to expedite the execution of such matters.

3. 20 cases (S. No. 10 to 29) are filed by dismissed employees against the decision of
Competent Disciplinary Authority. The same shall be defended on merits. Two (2) cases
pertaining to HR has been disposed and the same is discussed under Statement of Disposed
Cases at page No. 3.

4. 16 cases (S. No. 30 to 45) pertain to recruitment which are mainly challenging staff
recruitment procedure. Such cases pertains to Haldia Refinery (5), Mathura Refinery (3),
Barauni Refinery (2), Panipat Refinery (2) , Gujarat Refinery (2) and AOD (1) . These cases
shall be defended on merits. Two (2) cases pertaining to HR and one (1) case pertaining to
MR has been disposed and two (2) cases pertaining to RHQ and one (1) case pertaining
Page 1 of 6
 Refineries Division
NOTE

each to GR and PR has been included in the list and the same is discussed under Statement
of New Matters at page no. 4.

5. 31 cases (S. No. 46 to 76) pertain to payment of superannuation benefits to the nominees
wherein IOCL is a pro-forma Respondent. Such cases pertain to Haldia Refinery (25), Gujarat
Refinery (3), Barauni Refinery (2) and RHQ (1). There are family disputes in which IOCL has
no role to play or has no interest in the outcome except for the legal liability to release
payments as per the decision of the courts.

6. 8 cases (S. No. 77 to 84) pertain to employee promotions. Units are instructed to observe
the principles of natural justice and defend the matters on merits.

7. 5 cases (S. No. 85 to 89) pertain to accident compensation. The Units have been advised to
defend the matters on merits.

8. 3 cases (S. No. 90 to 92) pertain to claim for employment on compassionate grounds (1)
and by temporary workers (2). The same shall be defended on merits.

9. 4 cases (S. No. 93 to 96) pertain to Annual Increment.

10. 5 cases (S. No. 97 to 101) are of one case each of Disciplinary Matter, Manpower
Deployment, VRS, Transfer and Working Hours. 4 (four) other remaining cases (S. No 102 to
105) deals with the question as to whether the panel officer is workman as per provision of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertaining to PR (S. No. 102); the civil suit filed by IOCL PR
against IPREU (S. No. 103 to 104) for orders against resorting to agitational activities within
a radius of 500 metres from the periphery wall & periphery gates of PR&PC and Industrial
dispute referred to CGIT for adjudication as to whether the demand of Union in respect of
removal of income ceiling Rs 9000/- for dependent parents for medical purposes is legal &
justified. One case pertaining to AOD(S. No. 105) where an employee has requested HR
Deptt. for correction of his date of birth from 31/12/1958 to 21/10/1960, subsequent to his
passing of HSLC Examination in 1979. These cases shall be defended on merits. One (1)
case pertaining to HR has been disposed and the same is discussed under Statement of
Disposed Cases at page no. 4. One (1) case pertaining to PR has been included in the list
and the same is discussed under Statement of New Matters at page no. 5.

Page 2 of 6
 Refineries Division
NOTE

Statement of Disposed Cases :

(i) Bimalendu Maity v. IOCL, HR

IOCL issued a chargesheet dated 12.11.1997 charging the petitioner for contracting a
second marriage with one Tapsi Maity while the first wife was still living. Such an act was
found to be a gross indiscipline and to constitute misconduct under Clause 19 of the
Certified Standing Orders of the Haldia Refinery. The Disciplinary Authority found the
petitioner guilty and imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Kolkata High Court
decided the matter in favour of IOCL and held that the charge of the petitioner
contracting the second marriage stands substantiated and there is no other material
irregularity in the impugned order or the disciplinary proceedings for this Court to
intervene. Copy of order is attached for perusal as Annexure –A.

(ii) SK Golam Mustafa v. IOCL, HR

Petitioner was appointed to the post of Shramik/ Messenger –III on 28.09.2001 under the
Rehabilitation Scheme annexed to SABF Scheme of the Corporation While joining, he
submitted documents testifying that he has passed Madhyamik Examination in the year
2000. However, upon verification, it was confirmed by West Bengal of Secondary
Education that although he was declared unsuccessful in the said examination.
Acoordingly, his service was terminated with effect from 01.02.2002. Kolkata High Court
has dismissed the matter in default and accordingly, the matter has been decided in
favour of IOCL. The copy of the status of order from the website of Kolkata High Court is
attached for perusal as Annexure –B.

(iii) Atanu Das v. IOCL, HR

The petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Corporation vide order dated
14.10.1988 by the Disciplinary Authority by invoking special procedure under Certified
Standing Orders of Haldia Refinery in conection with a major theft of Lube Oil from Tank
No. 857 of Haldia Refinery. The petitioner has been acquitted in criminal proceedings and
has prayed for reinstatement into the services of the Corporation and to pay all his salary
arrears and retirement benefits. Kolkata High Court has dismissed the matter in default
and accordingly, the matter has been decided in favour of IOCL. The copy of the status
of order from the website of Kolkata High Court is attached for perusal as Annexure –C.

Page 3 of 6
 Refineries Division
NOTE

(iv) Sudipta Maity v. IOCL, HR

The petitioner was not considered for the post of Sampler-cum-bottle washer in
Haldia Refinery. Kolkata High Court has dismissed the matter in default and
accordingly, the matter has been decided in favour of IOCL. The copy of the status
of order from the website of Kolkata High Court is attached for perusal as Annexure
–D.

(v) Arnab Ratan Mitra v. IOCL, HR

The petitioner was selected provisionally through campus recruitment for the post of
Engineer/ Officer with the subject that if he is found medically fit. The petitioner was
declared medically unfit after the prescribed medical examination which included the
opinion of medical board. Accordingly, he was not allowed to join the services of the
Corporation. Kolkata High Court has dismissed the matter in default and accordingly,
the matter has been decided in favour of IOCL. The copy of the status of order from
the website of Kolkata High Court is attached for perusal as Annexure –E.

(vi) Vrighuram Mishra v. IOCL, HR

The matter pertains to disciplinary matter. In this case, the petitioner was awarded
punishment for stoppage of an annual increment in the year 1995. On raising an
industrial dispute by the Union i.e., IOCLEO matter failed in conciliation and Ministry
of Labour, Government of India did not consider the matter fit for adjudication.
Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before Kolkata High
Court. Kolkata High Court has dismissed the matter in default and accordingly, the
matter has been decided in favour of IOCL. The copy of the status of order from the
website of Kolkata High Court is attached for perusal as Annexure –F.

(vii) Raghuvendra Pratap Singh & Ors. v. IOCL, MR

The petitioner filed a case for recruitment in Mathura Refinery after completion of
apprenticeship training and accordingly, challenged the decision of MR to recruit
Operator – D through press advertisement. Allahabad High Court has dismissed the
matter in default and accordingly, the matter has been decided in favour of IOCL.
The copy of the status of order from the website of Kolkata High Court is attached
for perusal as Annexure –F.

Page 4 of 6
 Refineries Division
NOTE

Statement of New Case :

(i) Avinash Kalita v. IOCL (S. No. 30)

The matter pertains to GR with regard to recruitment. The facts of the case is that the
petitioner has filed the writ petition for considering his candidature for the post of JEA-IV
(Elect.) on the ground of his ineligibility to apply for the post. Notice of motion was issued
and the petitioner was allowed to participate in the examination held on 07.01.2019, and
one concerned post has been kept vacant and would be filed only with the leave of High
Court.

(ii) Awadesh v. (1) Mukesh Sharma & (2) IOCL (S. No. 35)

The matter pertains to PR with regard to recruitment. The facts of the case is that IOCL
issued advertisement no. PR/P/41 (2017-18) for the post of JEA-IV (F&S). Petitioner has
applied for the said post but was not selected. Aggrieved, he filed writ petition before
Punjab & Haryana High Court and prayed for quashing the list of provisionally shortlisted
for pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME) against Advt. PRlP/41 (2017-18) for the
post of Jr. E.A.-IV (Fire & Safety) post code being illegal and arbitrary. Further, he filed
contempt application before Punjab & Haryana High Court.

(iii) Kamlendra Kumar Verma v. IOCL (S. No. 44)

The Petitioner being a scheduled caste candidate claimed age relaxation and applied for
the post of Human Resource Officer, (Grade-A). He appeared in the written examination
and after qualifying in the same, was called for GD/GT & PI. However, the petitioner
could not qualify as the total marks secured by the petitioner was less than the last
selected candidate of SC category. However, the petitioner obtained more marks than the
last two selected candidates in the General Category. The case of the petitioner is that he
ought to have been considered against the General Category seat as he had obtained
more marks than the last two candidate of General Category.

(iv) Shivam Pandey v. IOCL (S. No. 45)

The Petitioner applied for the post of fire and safety officer in response to IOCL’s
advertisement No. R D-2017 dated 30.10.2017. The petitioner was provisionally short-
listed and was called for interview scheduled on 21.02.2018. After being declared as
successful candidate in interview an offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner vide
letter dated 19.03.2018. The Pre-employment medical examination of the petitioner was
Page 5 of 6
 Refineries Division
NOTE

conducted at Vadodara Refinery’s Hospital and was declared as medically fit. On

10.05.2018, the petitioner was directed to join Barauni Refinery and after serving nearly
for 50 days, IOCL has directed the petitioner to go for re-medical examination for his eyes
at Barauni Refinery’s Hospital. Vide termination letter dated 09.01.2019, the services of
petitioner with IOCL was terminated on the ground that he does not meet the prescribed
criteria of eyesight notified for recruitment to the post of fire and safety officer with
immediate effect.

(v)

Submitted for Information please.

Radha Reddy
CM (Law)

GM(ER)

GM – I/c (HR)

CGM (HR)

ED (HR)

Page 6 of 6