{"id":110872,"date":"2010-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-25T00:06:48","modified_gmt":"2016-08-24T18:36:48","slug":"makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1726\/1999\t 14\/ 16\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1726 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n \n\nMAKWANA\nRANJITSINH VAJUJI & 9 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nONGC\nLTD. & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nFB BRAHMBHATT for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MR RV DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1,None for\nPetitioner(s) : None for Petitioner No(s).: for Petitioner(s) : 2 -\n10. \nM\/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR RD RAVAL\nfor Respondent(s) : 2, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3 -\n4. \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 27\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tBy
\nway of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following
\nreliefs :-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tYour
\nLordship may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
\nappropriate Writ direction or order directing the respondent no.1
\nthat in case if new contractors are enjoyed they will continue they
\nwill continue the petitioners in serivce and their services will not
\nbe terminated. The respondent n.1 while entrusting new contract shall
\nimpose this condition in order to protect the interest of present
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tto
\ndeclare and hold the action of respondent no.1 in not treating the
\npetitioner as workmen of respondent no.1 as violative of the
\nprovisions of contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
\nand also Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
(b-1)
\n To direct the respondent no.1 Corporation to absorb all the
\npetitioners on the muster roll of the respondent no.1 Corporation and
\nto release all the benefits attached to the respective posts, as if
\nthey are the employees of the respondent no.1   Corporation w.e.f.\n<\/p>\n
06\/08\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n  \tPending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your
\nLordship is requested to direct the respondents to continue the
\npetitioners in service by way of ad-interim relief.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tany
\nother relief\/s that may be deemed fit, just and proper be granted in
\nthe interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThis
\nCourt while admitting present petition passed following order on
\n07\/05\/1999 :-<\/p>\n
\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n This\nCourt on  12.3.1999  issued  notice  to  the    respondents and made\nit returnable on 9.4.1999 and in the meantime  directed the\nrespondents to maintain status-quo   as to the employment of the\npetitioners and  to  continue  the same.  It  is the grievance of the\npetitioners that  the petitioners no.  2,4, 5 and 6 have not been\npermitted  to resume the duties  since  16.3.1999  and  no  work  is \nprovided  to  them  and  affidavit dated 5.5.1999 to that  effect has\n been  filed  by  petitioner  no.    4-  Patel       Nileshkumar\nLalbhai.  Mr.  SC Bhamara, Executive Engineer  (Production) on \nbehalf  of  the respondent no.  1 - ONGC  filed affidavit  denying \nthe  allegations  made  in  the affidavit.   It  is  the  say  of \nthe  deponent that the  petitioner no.  4 as well  as  other \nemployees  are  not  engaged or  employed  by  the  concerned\ncontractors since      31.1.1999 i.e.  much before the service of the\n order  of  this  Court  26th  March, 1999, in other words, it is the\n say of the deponent that before the order  of  status-quo     \npassed  by  this Court and served to the respondents, the services of\nthose four petitioners were terminated by the  contractors i.e.\nrespondents no. 2 and 3.\n       \n      \tNow,  admittedly,   the   petitioners   are   the    employees of the  respondent  no.  2 or respondent no.  3   and as per the say of respondent no.  1, the services  of four  petitioners  out of ten petitioners were terminated by the contractor with effect from 31.1.199.  Having gone through the abstract of the muster roll produced  at  the time  of  hearing, it is clear that four petitioners have marked their presence upto 28.2.1999.    Meaning  thereby that   they   have   performed   their  duties  with  the       contractors up to the said date.  Therefore,  it  is  not correct  to  say  that  their  services came to an end on 31.1.1999 as contended  by  respondent  no.    1.     The  respondents no.    2  and 3 though served with the notice issued by this Court, have  not  filed  their  appearance and,  therefore, the averments made by the concerned four      petitioners are required to be accepted.  It is  the  say of  all  those  four petitioners that they have performed their duties upto 16.3.1999  and,  thereafter  they  were prevented from  performing their duties.  When this Court has directed the respondents to maintain status quo as to the employment of the petitioners  and  to  continue  the same,  it  is  not  open  for either of the respondent to commit the breach of the order.   In  this  view  of  the      matter, by  wayof mandatory order, the respondents no.  2 and 3 are  directed  to  re-employ  the  petitioners  no.2,4,5  and  6  forthwith  as  if  their  services are not terminated, till pending hearing and  final  disposal  of this petition.  SO to 17.6.1999.  DS Permitted. \n      \n\n<\/pre>\n
3.\t\tIt is the case on behalf of the petitioners that respondent no.2,3 and 4 are labour contractors. It is further submitted that the nature of work performed by the petitioners is of perennial in nature. The petitioners are rendering their services under respondents since last more than 8 years. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 is the principal employer and respondent no.2,3 and 4 are immediate employer.  It is further submitted that work of the petitioners is being supervised by the principal employer.  It is submitted that under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the appointment of respondent no.2,3 and 4 is made by the principal employer.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tIt is further submitted that under section 10 of the Act the Government of India has issued Notification prohibiting the employment of helpers and drivers and thereafter also, the respondent no.1 has continued to treat the petitioners in violation of the provisions of law and notification as contract labourers.  It is submitted that once the notification is issued and system of contract labour is abolished, the workers who had been styled as contract labours have to be absorbed by the respondents. It is submitted that the relation of principal employer and immediate employer comes to an end once and for all immediately after abolition of contract labour system. It is submitted that it is expected from respondent no1. – Corporation that being State under Article 12 of the Constitution it should act as a model but unfortunately inspite of the notification that being published and which has been brought to the notice of respondent no.1 Corporation from time and again the respondent no.1 has continuously extracted the potentialities of the workers on contract basis in order to deprive their rights attached to the post of permanent workmen of ONGC. It is submitted that during the span of 8 years many contractors are replaced by respondent no.1 but services of the petitioners were continued even on engaging new contractors.  It is submitted that in violation of the settled policy, the ONGC is not going to impose any condition on the new contractors and it is apprehended that new contractors may discontinue the services of the present petitioners.  It is submitted that under the circumstances the petitioners for no fault on their part after putting 8 years continues services may be rendered jobless.  It is submitted that looking to the perennial nature of work the petitioners should be treated as direct employees of the respondent no.1. It is submitted that respondent no.1 has continued the services of workers even after engaging new contractor and the same practice is prevailing even today also. It is submitted that respondents should act in accordance with the law and settled policy of ONGC and continue the services of the petitioners even if new contractors are being appointed.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tIt is required to be noted that subsequently Contempt petition was filed wherein a statement was made that order passed by this Court was complied with.  Thereafter, present petitioners filed another Civil Application No.14829 of 1999, wherein this Court passed following order on 20\/11\/2003 :-\n<\/p>\n
 1.   What is complained in this civil application is that    the petitioner – applicant nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are not paid for the period commencing from February 1999 to September 1999, and, therefore, the respondent ONGC be directed  to pay wages for the said period forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
 2.   The  facts  as they stand on record are that Special      Civil Application No.1726 of 1999 was filed  before  this Court  wherein  this Court issued the notice on 12.3.1999  making it returnable on 9.4.1999.  It is the case of  the applicants  that  applicant  nos.2,  4,  5 and 6 were not  permitted to resume their duties since 16.3.1999  and  no work was  provided  to  them.   This Court by order dated 7.5.1999 issued the direction that “In this view  of  the  matter,  by  way of mandatory order, the respondents no.2      and 3 are directed to re-employ the petitioners no.2,  4, 5   and   6  forthwith  as  if  their  services  are  not terminated, till pending hearing and  final  disposal  of this petition…..”\n<\/p>\n
3.   It  is  further  on  the  record  that,  as the said    direction was not complied with, the applicants original     petitioners filed  Misc.    Civil  Application No.1340 of 1999 in Special Civil Application No.1726 of 1999,  which came   to   be   disposed   of   by  this  Court  (Coram: R.K.Abichandani  and  D.H.Waghela,JJ)  by   order   dated 20.9.2000, the order reads as under.:\n<\/p>\n
       “A direction to re-employ the petitioner No.2, 4,  5 and 6 which was given to the respondents  nos.2 and 3  on 7.5.1999 has now been complied with.  A letter  dated  10.9.1999  showing  this  fact  is placed on  record. In this view of the matter, there remains now no ground  for  initiating  any  contempt  proceedings  against  the  respondents. The application is therefore, rejected. Notice             is discharged with no order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
The applicants did not press for the  present  relief  at      the  time  of  complaining  of noncompliance of the order dated 7.5.1999.  The present civil application  is  filed on 13.12.1999  while the Misc.  Civil Application No.1340 of 1999 was disposed of on 20.9.2000.  In  this  view  of  the   matter,   the  present  civil  application  has  no  substance and the same is rejected.  Notice is discharged  with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The learned advocate  appearing  for  the  applicants prays  that, liberty may be reserved to the applicants to take appropriate remedy for the  relief  prayed  in  this  application. Remedy   available,   if   any,   to  the  applicants, can always be taken recourse to  without  any liberty being reserved for the same. However, it is made  clear  that  remedy,  if  any, is available, the same can always be resorted to.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tLearned Counsel for the petitioners contented that in view of above, Notification dated 06.09.1994 could not have been issued prohibiting the employment of helpers, peons, attendance and operators and the petitioners be absorbed with the principal employer   Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to affidavit-in-rejoinder, more particularly para   4 which is as under  :-\n<\/p>\n
 4. \tI say that is it not true that the placement of the petitioner amounts to back door entry,  because the placement of the petitioners workers is in view of the Government Notification and therefore, when by the order of this Court, after going through the contents of the notification, the Corporation is specifically directed to absorb the workers on the pay roll of the Corporation, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that this amounts to back door entry. I say that the said statement made on affidavit by the ONGC amounts to contempt of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIn view of above, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondents may be directed to absorb the petitioners. However, Mr.Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1   Corporation, raised preliminary objection that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Others v\/s. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1, reversing the view which was prevailing, now the petitioners are required to approach appropriate forum for ventilating their grievance and they may be relegated to the appropriate forum.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Surpa) in para 103 to 105  has held as under :\n<\/p>\n
103.\tWhile this was the state of law in regard to the contract labour, the issue of automatic absorption of the contract labour came up before a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Air India case (supra). The Court held : (1) though there is no express provision in the CLRA Act for absorption of the contract labour when engagement of contract labour stood prohibited on publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, from that moment the principal employer cannot continue contract labour and direct relationship gets established between the workmen and the principal employer; (2) the Act did not intend to denude the contract labour of their source of livelihood and means of development throwing them out from employment; and (3) in a proper case the Court as sentinel on the qui vive is required to direct the appropriate authority to submit a report and if the finding is that the workmen were engaged in violation of the provisions of the Act or were continued as contract labour despite prohibition of the contract labour under Section 10(1), the High Court has a constitutional duty to enforce the law and grant them appropriate relief of absorption in the employment of the principal employer. Justice Majmudar, in his concurring judgment, put it on the ground that when on the fulfilment of the requisite conditions, the contract labour is abolished\t1997 AIR SCW 430 : AIR 1997 SC 645 : 1997 Lab IC 365 1995 AIR SCW 2942 : AIR 1995 SC 1893 : 1995 Lab IC 2207 under Section 10(2), the intermediary contractor vanishes and along with him vanishes the term “principal employer” and once the intermediary contractor goes the term “principal” also goes with it; out of the tripartite contractual scenario only two parties remain, the beneficiaries of the abolition of the erstwhile contract labour system, i.e. the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the other, who is no longer their principal employer but necessarily becomes a direct employer for erstwhile contract labourers. The learned judge also held that in the provision of Section 10 there is implicit legislative intent that on abolition of contract labour system, the erstwhile contract workmen would become direct employees of the employer on whose establishment they were earlier working and were enjoying all the regulatory facilities under Chapter V in that very establishment. In regard to the judgment in Gujarat Electricity Board’s case (supra), to which he was a party, the learned Judge observed that he wholly agreed with Justice Ramaswamy’s view that the scheme envisaged by Gujarat Electricity Board case was not workable and to that extent the said judgment could not be given effect to.\n<\/p>\n
104.  For reasons we have given above, with due respect to the learned Judges, we are unable to agree with their reasoning or conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
105. The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substitution remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. We have already noticed above the intendment of the CLRA Act that it regulates the conditions of service of the contract labour and authorizes in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, in our view, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10. Admittedly when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA ACT is explicitly in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible. We have already held above, on consideration of various aspects, that it is difficult to accept that the Parliament intended absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible. We have already held above, on consideration of various aspects, that it is difficult to accept that the Parliament intended absorption of contract labour on issue of abolition notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act.\n<\/p>\n
Further para 125 and 126 of the said judgment reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus :\n<\/p>\n
(1)(a) Before January 28, 1986, the determination of the question whether Central Government or the State Government, is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression “appropriate Government” as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry; or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company ? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government ; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government.\n<\/p>\n
(b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer, to the question referred to above, has to be found in Cl. (a) of S.2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the concerned Central Government company \/ undertaking or any undertaking is included therein eo nomin, or (ii)any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government or, (b) by railway company; or (c) by specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated; will be the appropriate Government.\n<\/p>\n
2(a) A Notification under S.10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government :\n<\/p>\n
(1)after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and
\n(2) having regard to\n<\/p>\n
(i)conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-section (2) of S.10\n<\/p>\n
(b)inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on December 9, 1976 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of S.10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passes or no action taken giving effect to the said Notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in any Tribunal or Court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and\/or it has been implemented.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Neither S. 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of S. 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment.\n<\/p>\n
(4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India’s case (supra) prospectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator\/any Court including High Court, for absorption of contact labour following the judgment in Air India’s case (supra), shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final.\t1997 AIR SCW 430 : AIR 1997 SC 645 : 1997 Lab IC 365\t<\/p>\n
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse\/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.\n<\/p>\n
126. We have used the expression “industrial adjudicator” by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires inquiry into disputed question of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be Industrial Tribunal \/ Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tIn view of aforesaid discussion and in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India (Supra),  it may not be appropriate to entertain this petition.  The petitioners are relegated to approach concerned authority constituted under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 within a period of 4 (Four) weeks from today. Till then, interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 07.05.1999 will continue. It is clarified that it will be open for the petitioners to approach appropriate authority for further relief. Present Special Civil Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[K.S.Jhaveri, J.]<\/p>\n
satish<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1726\/1999 14\/ 16 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1726 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMakwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-24T18:36:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T18:36:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3316,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T18:36:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-24T18:36:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T18:36:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010"},"wordCount":3316,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010","name":"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T18:36:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makwana-vs-ongc-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Makwana vs Ongc on 27 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110872","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}