c ,s-^^o IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0?^?/2004 PETITIONER ——— Mahendra Goyanka S/o Late S.K.Goyaiika ,aged about 26 Years, Occu.-Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Baikunthpur, Resi. Of Kotma, Distt. Korea (C.G.) VERSUS ^.-, ^ r --. RESPONDENT -—— Indian Oil Corporation limited, Acting through senior Divisional Manager, Raipur Division Rajeev Gandhi Marg, (VIP Road), P.0. Ravigram , Telibandha, Raipur(C.G.). f:fl :,'^1' "'"•'. -;;? ^SI^] ^ 'c? -'•^•ss^'^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITSAVRITS DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS OR ORDER / ORDERS. XI-HC-22 •^) "3FST ^|HH<LI, ^nlwKo, f^Knwy 3n^?r XR^ ^0.<p-^0. 2-^ 2-cl|0^ '^ 20tt Hm<ni $hHicn fa^^ ^n^T'cFF Jqiicn 37l^T $t»^ict»«^a Fl^t ^{I^F^<R^^^ <^i!<;ifal41iif'RPl^^festl ^I?n^t< ^3ri^P11\N^|i coutasel IS.9,2004 Snit. Haaiida Siddique, Shri Bhisma Kiager, couns^l The petitioner has prefeiTe| 226/227 of the Coustitution o| validin7, propriety aad coiTectae^s (Annexure P-1) passed by the Si| of rcspondcnt-Corporation, Thc ^ns ttiat the petitioner's contract lia| him one month's notice. The brief facts leadiiig to fj tlie petitioner aiid respondent runnnig a Com.pasiy Owned and pump at Baikuutlipur, Distiict I<| job contract was giveu to tlie pet petrol pump 011 fhe rates, terixis| said agreeBient, The tei-m. ofjoll 23,3.2003 siibject to ac. extensioli option on tlie saine rate^, tei'ms! agreement furtlier mexitioned'tli^ teniiiiiated at the option of tlie C( expiiy of tlie contract by givuig oi^ assigning any rcason whateocver.| The fii'st yeai' term expir^ written extensioii was graiited petitiouer contiaued to run fhe 4 for flie petitioner, ^l for fhc Caveator/respondent, |1 this wnt petition luider Article |f India questioiimg tiie legaMty, of the order-dated 07.8.2004 Divisional Retall Sales Manager ^nain. gric^ancc of the petitioner is ^ beeu tei-mmated witiiout giviag |iling of fhis writ petition are that |entered io.to aa agreenient for ponipany Operated (COCO) petrol ^riya (Amiexure P-4) whereby tlie |:itioiier by respondent to nui tlie laiid conditious nientioned iu tlie contract was for one-year w,e.f by one year at the Corporation's laiicl conditions, Clause-4 of ftie t however, tlie agreemeiit caii be (orporation at aiiy tiiiie before fhe \.e inontli notice in writio-g witliout |;d on 23.3.2004, tfaereafter, no |to the \petitioner. However, the |aid peti-ol punip, but vide order" ih- XI-HC-22 ^5?-^F(R;R. "^ta^, fa<twy sni^r -qsra? 00:f. ^o .^G^\^ """^l HW^ni ^bHicn ' (ct<t^ Sn^r^i fqii<=l»3TI^ s>r>4ilct» ^tE^a \ "'v ^ ^^^ ^{B^l ^CtE^^ .-•L petiti< dated 07.08.2004 (Aiinexiu-e P-1) ^ tersziiiiated by flie Sr, Divisioj respondeut-Corporation for fhe contract was already exptred on mentioned in. ihe order tiiat rcsp43 sales figures of MS/HSD (April 4 sales figures the respoiident reacl perfoniiaiicc of the pctitiouer wa^ achieve tiie agreed target Tfae agrj HSD was 120, whereas the sale w^s such job contract was terminate< perfomiQnce, Leanied counsel for the wntteu e.xt.ension order was given tlie agreement envisages aii exten| petltioner was allowed to raii fhe contract period, tlierefore, that ^ pctitioncr ought to have been aUcn^ She fiiifber submits tliat witliout contract was teriiiiiiated vide inipui On fh.e other hand respoiident/Caveator ai'gued fh.at a^r< no extensiou was graated to fhc ttiat sio.ee fhcre was no alteraati^e petitiouer was atlowed to contiaue| extension, as such no right <=h<ls^£dAHI-NidI'^fesl ^li^^^ A contract of fhe petitioxier was ial Retail Sales Maxiager of 3.asou that fhc period of job ;2.3.2004. It has been further [ident CoiTporation reviewed flie July, 2004), on reviewing the ied to conclusion tliat tlie sale poor and he was not able to ^ed tai'get for MS was 40 & for 34 for MS &. 95 for HSD,as on the ground of poor sales |itiouer argued that though no |o flie petitioner but Clause-4 of uon of one-year period, as tlie ^etrol puxiip even after expiry of jras iniplied exteiisiou ao.cl the red tiU ffae end of aiiother vcar, tivmg one-monfh notice ftie job bied orcler, leaaied counsel for the ^reeinent was for only one year^ t?etitioner. He fiirther szibniite aiTao.gemeut, tlicrefore, tlie witli tlie contract witliout aay ^crued to the petitioner for T XI-HC-22 W^T^T f<rlJch <HlS;^k 5b*ilct> ^tt^a ^•oct '<ii^i<nci ?PT, ^Tf1^4i<o, ft«rtl^y WH€iff%W^> 3TT^T ^^? to'f. /oo ^G^ci ^^ "^ 28® IN^y' ?II^i 3?i|C[^i^^llW ^ltei coutiiiuati.011 of the job contract subinits tliat. as tlie sales perfor^ fhercforc, his job contract was tert It is aii admitted position one year vide Annexure P-4 aiid ^ the agreeixient for exteusion ofcol on tlie same rates, terms aad c{ exteusion was passed ia favozir opmion no right was accrued ni f4 wifi.1 fhe job conti'act. Even m was issued by fhe respondent has beeii categorically ineutioii^ ninniiig the COCO petrol puxnp of one year, he should not be has been furtlier mentioned ia tlj be based strictlv on fhe salesl petitioner and target giveu to him| of thc petitioner was fozuid to bej was tei-mmated vidc order dated In view of above, I am of tll not been able to rsiake out any c^ nivoke the extra-orditiary jurisdi<| the petition is tiable to be admission stage itsetf. :or<aance tbat tlie before dismibsed <^ridi<i:ffi<*ir*t<>ff'$fe'<3 <A^K ^ ^tP^^ ^IlS%li for aiiother one year. He furfcher of the petitioner was poor, ;ikaiiiated, fhe job contract was given for liere is a provision m Clause-4 of |itract period for another one year ^nditions. However, no order for ?f the pctitioiier, fhercfore, ui iny ^vour of fbe petitioner to continue ttie letter dated 13.3.2002, which entermg uito Uie contract, it |id fhat the petitioner shaU be a labour contractor for a pcriod as a dealer ofthis outlet It (e letter tliat the job coutract witl pexfonaaAice achieved by fhe aiid since the sales perfoniiance poor, thercfore, his job coutract r.8.2004. opinion th.at tlie petitioner has ^se io. liis favour eiitifliag hiai to |tion of this Coiut. Accoi'diagly, and it is disinissed on fhe tr^ated 0|7. tJle Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^4^^ T>^^ g @