9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectors of Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. (for short `CORIL'),a Government Company, on the writ petition filed by the employees of CORIL being Writ Petition No. 426 of 1978. The Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Refining (India) Ltd. and of the undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd.) Act 17 of 1977, hereinafter referred to as `the Act', was enacted by the Union Parliament and came into force with effect from April Z3. 1977. the Act provides for the acquisition of shares of CORIL and for the acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of Caltex (India) Ltd. in relation to its Undertakings in India with a view to ensuring co-ordinated distribution and utilisation of petroleum products. Under section 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that consequent upon the take over of the Caltex (India) Ltd. by the Government, the question of rationalisation of the perquisites and allowances admissible to Management Staff had been under consideration of the Board for sometime, and that as an interim measure, the Board had decided that the perquisites admissible to the Management Staff should be rationalised in the manner stated in the said circular. At this stage, it may be mentioned that by the Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Amalgamation Order, 1978 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated May 9, 1978, the Undertaking of CORIL was transferred to and vested in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which thus bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yees not having been given an opportunity of being heard before altering to their prejudice the terms and conditions of service, the impugned circular should be struck down as void being opposed to the principles of natural justice. All the contentions except the last contention of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were rejected by the High Court. The High Court, however, took the view that as no opportunity was given to the employees of CORIL before the impugned circular was issued, the Board of Directors of CORIL acted illegally and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, the High Court quashed the impugned circular. Hence this appeal by special leave. It is not disputed that the employees were not give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e terms and conditions of service of the employees of the second respondent including the petitioners herein have been substantially and adversely altered to the PG NO 930 prejudice of such employees. The same would be clear inter alia from the statements annexed hereto and marked as Annexure IV. Annexure IV is a statement of Annual Loss in Remuneration Income per person/employee posted at Delhi and U.P. Nothing has been produced before us on behalf of CORIL or the Union of India to show that the statements contained in Annexure IV are untrue. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the contention made by Mr. Pai that there has been no prejudicial alteration of the terms and conditions of service of the employees of CORIL, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice of a Government servant will offend against the provision of Article of the Constitution Admittedly, the employees of CORIL were not given an opportunity of hearing or representing their case before the impugned circular was issued by the Board of Directors. The impugned circular was therefore, be sustained as it Offends against the rules of natural justice. It is, however, contended on behalf of CORIL that after the impugned circular was issued, an opportunity of hearing was given to the employees with regard to the alterations made in the conditions of their service by the impugned PG NO 931 circular. In our opinion, the post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who emba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. We do not think that would meet the ends of justice. They have already been thrown our of employment and having been deprived of livelihood they must be facing serious difficulties. I here is no justification to throw them out of employment and then given them an opportunity of representation when the requirement is that they should have the opportunity referred to above as a condition precedent to action. It is common experience that once a decision has been taken. there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose. The view that has been taken by this Court in the above observation is that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not yiel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
