Shankar Satlingappa Mhetre v. Principal Secretary (Appeal And Security ) Government Of Maharashtra And ORS

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12219 OF 2025 Oil Field Employees Association through President Shaligram G. Mishra .. Petitioner

Versus

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd & Ors.

.. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Shaligram Mishra, Petitioner in Person ...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Petitioner in person. He would submit that he desires to represent and espouse the cause of workers / workmen working with Respondent No. 1 - ONGC. He would submit that the present Petition is in the interest of every workman who is working in ONGC through the Contractor. Though in the Petition some distinction is carved out, on considering the reliefs which are prayed for by him, it is not clear as to what is the precise relief that he seeks. Further his locus to file the Petition is also crucial since he does not represent the Union. There are already recognized Union in the Respondent No. 1.

2.

When the Petition is argued before me, he would submit that all that he seeks from the Court is a direction to Respondent No. 1 that workmen working in ONGC through the contractors should not be

removed without following the due process of law. This is the only point which he has argued across the bar and which Court has understood. Looking at the prayer clauses, it is not even clear as to what is the relief, Petitioner is seeking since all that he seeks in certiorari and direction with respect to the Petition. Sum and substance of Mr. Mishra's argument is that there are 400 workmen working in ONGC through contractors and whatever are their substantive rights, they should be protected before they are removed from service. Though it is a very omnibus kind of submission made by Mr. Mishra, all that I can do is issue notice to Respondent No. 1 to understand the correct picture and nothing more before I determine and dispose of the Petition.

3.

One of the grievance raised by Mr. Mishra is that all daily wage workers are removed from service but no details whatsoever thereof have been given either in the Petition or otherwise. Petitioner is directed to give those details if he wants to prosecute the Petition failing which it shall be dismissed. Submissions made by Mr. Mishra are vague and general. Petitioner will have to show how the Petition is maintainable in the form in which it is filed. 4.

Issue notice to the Respondent No. 1 only made returnable on 29.09.2025 at this stage. I do not propose to issue notice to other private Respondents. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's

notice, Petitioner is directed to serve copy of the Petition along with copy of this order on Respondent No. 1 only and inform them about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or before the next date.

5.

Stand over to 29th September, 2025 subject to compliance of this order.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date:

2025.09.24 14:56:29 +0530 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR