1. The petitioner who was originally an employee of Assam Oil Company continued to remain service even after the Assam Oil Company was taken by Oil India Ltd. and the petitioner joined the service of the respondent no. 2 Oil India Ltd. with effect from January, 1962 on his service transferred in that company on condition that the terms and conditions would not be less favourable, and service under both the companies would be treated as continuous for retirement, provident fund, leave and other service benefits. In 1972 the petitioner was promoted as Senior Mechanical Engineer.
2. By a letter dated 5th March 1981 addressed to the Resident Chief Executive, Oil India Ltd., Duliajan, the petitioner communicated his intention to terminate his service agreement with the company with effect from 3rd June 1981 and gave notice of such termination. It was, inter alia, stated in the said letter that the petitioner was entitled to early pension as provided in rule 6 of the Pension Fund Rules, since he had completed more than 21 years of continuous service with the company and its associated company and had also attained the qualifying age. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that he had executed a bond dated 20th December 1976 of Rs. 40,000/- in favour of the company in connection with his training abroad whereunder the petitioner was required to serve the company upto 1st March 1982. Since the petitioner intended to leave the service of the company for reasons beyond his control and as stated in the above-mentioned letter dated 5th March 1981, the petitioner requested the said Resident Chief Executive to waive this requirement of further service with the company upto 1st March 1982 in terms of the bond dated 20th December 1978 executed by the petitioner for Rs. 40,000/- in connection with the training abroad and offered to pay the proportionate part of the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- in respect of the remaining period to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. In the above letter dated 5th March, 1981 the petitioner wrote to the Resident Chief Executive of Oil India Ltd. seeking relense from service with effect from 3rd June, 1981 on the ground of (a) prolonged suffering of the petitioner's wife from Bronchial Asthma which was found incurable even after trentment at the place of posting and other places including Calcutta, (b) absence of educational facilities at Duliajan which compelled the petitioner to send his son and daughter to Madras and Calcutta respectively, thereby requiring the petitioner to maintain three establishments (c) advice of doctors to keep the petitioner's wife in a dry place away from the humid climate of Assam.
4. By a letter dated 13 March, 1981, the said Resident Chief Executive replied to the petitioner's letter purporting to contend that under the Company's rules, the petitioner was not entitled to pension as of right and a special case has to be made out to the satisfaction of the company in order to obtain early pension under the rules. It was further stated that the company had duly considered the petitioner's request for early retirement on its merit and after taking all relevant aspects into consideration the company regretted its inability to accede to the petitioner's request for early retirement pension. It was further stated that the company was not satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make a special case to obtain early pension under the rules. As regards the request made by the petitioner for waiving the requirement of his serving the company in terms of the above mentioned bond, it was stated in the said letter that the petitioner would have to pay the company the sum of Rs. 40,000 in full as no pro-rata adjustment is allowed under the said bond.
5. By a letter dated 27th March, 1981, addressed to the said Resident Chief Executive, the petitioner protested against the purported decision that early pension could not be granted to him as also against the purported contention that the petitioner would have to pay the total amount of the bond money. It was contended by the petitioner that the said stand was unjustified and in the circumstances of the case the petitioner should in all fairness be required to pay a maximum of Rs. 10,000/-.
6. By a letter dated 23rd April, 1981 written on behalf of the said Resident Chief Executive, the petitioner was informed that since despite the request from the other and the petitioner was insisting on leaving the company, they had no choice but to accept the petitioner's resignation with regret and that the petitioner would be released after the close of the working hours on 4th June, 1981. It was further stated in the said letter that as per prevailing practice, the petitioner would not be eligible to claim leave salary for the outstanding leave due to the petitioner as on 4th June, 1981 and the petitioner would neither be entitled to early retirement benefit nor would there be any remission in the recovery of the sum of the bond money of Rs. 40,000/- and that the petitioner would have to make good the full amount to the company prior to his release.
7. The petitioner was allowed leave without pay to enable him to prepare himself to join his present job and was granted 10 days leave without pay from 25th May, 1981 to 3rd June, 1981 on condition that he would have to report to the Calcutta Office of the said company on 4th June, 1981. The Resident Chief Executive advised the Branch Manager Calcutta office to hand over the cheque for final settlement to the petitioner on his joining the Calcutta Office on 4th June, 1981.
8. The petitioner accordingly joined the Calcutta Office at 9 A.M on 4th June, 1981 and received the cheque from the Branch Manager of Calcutta Office of the respondent company and granted acknowledgement of the said payment by putting his signature in the presence of two witnesses, who were executives of the respondent company posted in its Calcutta Office. The payment made to the petitioner at Calcutta was by a cheque drawn on the United Bank of India, Calcutta. Thereafter the petitioner was released from the Calcutta Office with effect from 5th June, 1981.
9. The petitioner states that he accepted release without in any way accepting the terms thereof and did not give up his case for early retirement and the benefits attendant thereto under the rules applicable to him.
10. Thereafter as his several representations against the refusal to grant the pension and proportionate refund of Rs. 30,000/- of the bond money the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 contested the Writ petition by filing a joint affidavit in opposition. It is contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition as the petitioner was an employee of the Oil India Ltd. at Dullinjan in Assam, that he resigned from his service from Duliajan that his prayer for pensionary benefit was refused by the concerned authority at Duliajan and only because on his request he accepted his service benefits from Calcutta and for that purpose on his own request joined for a day in Calcutta, the High Court at Calcutta cannot have any cause of action to entertain the writ petition. It is also contended that the petitioner was an employee of Oil India Ltd. before the said company along with other companies were acquired by the Central Government by Burmah Oil Company (Acquisition of shares of Oil India Ltd. and of the Undertakings in India of Assam Oil Co. Ltd. and Burman Oil Company (India Trading) Ltd. Act 1981 for which the assent of the President was received on 28th September 1981 and the shares were acquired only on the appointed day specified by the notification issued the Act in view of the s. 3 of the Act and as the alleged claim of the petitioner arose before the shares of the Oil India Ltd. were acquired by Central Government under the above Act the petitioner cannot move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the claim of the petitioner against a limited company governed by the Indian Companies Act.
12. It is also submitted that even on merits the claim of the petitioner is not entertainable. The first point for decision is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. On behalf of the Respondent it is urged that the petitioner was an officer of Oil India Ltd. before the said company was acquired by the Central Govt. by the Acquisition Act of 1981, that he resigned from service while working at Duliajan and the reliefs sought for in this writ petition were also refused in Duliajan in Assam and therefore this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
12A. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that as the petitioner was permitted to retire with effect from 5th June 1981 after he joined in the Calcutta Office of Oil India Ltd. on 4th June 1981 and the petitioner was paid his retirement dues from Calcutta which he received with protest, part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.
13. On behalf of the Respondent it is submitted that the Respondent no. 2 permitted the petitioner to join in Calcutta on the expiry of his leave and to take all dues from Calcutta on his own prayer and that by seeking such prayer to get his payment from Calcutta he cannot clothe this Court with jurisdiction.
14. On considering the respective contentions of both the parties, I am of the view that even if it be conceded that the petitioner himself sought for permission to join in Calcutta on 4th June 1981 the fact that the Respondent no. 2 allowed him to join in Calcutta on 4th June 1981 and from Calcutta he was actually released from the service of the Respondent no. 2 with effect from 5th June 1981 and the payments which according to the Respondent was the full payment which the petitioner was entitled to on his resignation being accepted, part of cause of action arose in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. So, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
15. The second contention of the Respondent is that the petitioner cannot file this writ petition against the present Government of India Undertaking Oil India Ltd. in respect of the claim which he had against Oil India Ltd. a private company before the shares of the said company were acquired by the Central Govt. by the Burmah Oil Company (Acquisition of Shares of India Oil Ltd. and of the Undertaking in of India of Assam Oil Company & Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Ltd. Act 1981 which came into force on 28th September 1981.
16. I have carefully perused the provision of the above Act. It is a fact that only after the above Act was passed and assent of the President was received on 28th September 1981 then by virtue of s. 3 of the Act with effect from the appointed day, the shares of the above private limited company were acquired by the Central Government.
17. Therefore, cause of action of the petitioner to claim the pension as well as other reliefs which the petitioner asked for from the private limited company cannot be adjudicated by the writ court in its writ jurisdiction. Even if the Oil India Ltd. is now a public undertaking and is an “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, yet the public undertaking had nothing to do with the claim of the petitioner which the petitioner can realise by a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was never an employee of the present public undertaking. He was the employee of the private company and resigned from service of the said company long before the shares of the company were acquired by the Central Government. Therefore for the relief sought for against the private company or even against the present public undertaking the petitioner's only relief is to file an appropriate civil suit in a competent court of law.
18. I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that when the management was with Government when he resigned, the writ lies.
19. In the result, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek the reliefs which he has made in this writ petition.
In the circumstances, I do not enter into the merits of the writ petition.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
The Rule is discharged.
Petition dismissed.