Allowed

Binod Chandra Borah @ Bindu Chandra Borah v. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2023WP(C)/4861/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the exclusion of the petitioner from benefits under an industrial tribunal award due to a misspelling of his name. The Court held that the petitioner was the intended beneficiary and directed the respondents to treat him as such.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be treated as a beneficiary under the award dated 18/12/2000 despite the misspelled name. The respondents are indemnified against claims by a fictitious 'Bindu Chandra Borah'.

Binod Chandra Borah @ Bindu Chandra Borah Vs the Oil… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010206192021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4861/2020

¶5

BINOD CHANDRA BORAH @ BINDU CHANDRA BORAH S/O- LT. JUGESWAR BORAH VILL- PALENGI DHYAN GAON P.O. PALENGI P.S. SIVASAGAR DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640

¶6

VERSUS THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2 ORS (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REGD. OFFICE- NEW DELHI AND THE H.O. AT TEL BHAWAN DEHRADUN AND THE EASTERN REGIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE ASSAM PIN- 785685 2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ONGC EASTERN REGIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE ASSAM PIN- 785640 3:THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) DIBRUGARH P.O. CHOWKIDINGEE PIN- 786001 DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MS. S CHUTIA Advocate for : GA

¶7

Page No.# 2/3

¶8

ASSAM appearing for THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2 ORS

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Date : 16/03/2023

¶12

Heard Ms. S. Chetia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 & 2. Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC, is present on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

¶13

As per the case projected in the writ petition, the petitioner herein, was one of the beneficiaries under the award dated 18/12/2000 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, Assam, in connection with Reference No. 12(C)/1999. Despite the award having attained finality on being affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and notwithstanding the fact that several other similarly situated employees either have already been given or are in the process of being conferred with the benefit under the award, the petitioner has been left running from the pillar to post seeking relief. The solitary reason for that is owing to a confusion arising out of the misspelling of his name in the award dated 18/12/2000.

¶14

It appears that in the original award issued by the learned Industrial Tribunal, the name of the petitioner has been shown as “Bindu Chandra Borah” whereas the correct name of the petitioner is “Binod Chandra Borah”.

¶15

Ms. Chetia has referred to the materials available on record to contend that even the Regional Labour Commissioner i.e. the respondent no. 3 has clarified with the ONGC authorities that the appearance of “Bindu Chandra Borah” in the award was a typographical error and the actual name of the person is “Binod Chandra Borah”, who is the writ petitioner in this case. It further appears that Sri Binod Chandra Borah is the son of late Jogeshwar Borah, who is a resident of village Palengi, Dhyan Gaon in the district of Sivasagar, Assam.

¶16

Mr. Chakraborty submits that due to the confusion arising out of the error in the spelling of the name of the petitioner, the ONGC authorities are not in a position to extend the benefit under the award to the petitioner unless it is established that there was a mistake in the spelling of the name of the petitioner in the award. It is also the submission of Mr. Chakraborty that there is no person by the

¶17

Page No.# 3/3

¶18

name of “Bindu Chandra Borah” working under the ONGC or any of its contractors.

¶19

After hearing the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that it is the petitioner “Binod Chandra Borah” who is the beneficiary under the award but his name has been wrongly written therein as “Bindu Chandra Borah”.

¶20

What is also to be noted herein that although the award was passed way back in the year 2000, yet, no person in the name of “Bindu Chandra Borah” has ever approached the respondent nos. 1 and 2 or any other forum claiming benefit under the award.

¶21

Situated thus, this writ petition is hereby disposed of by providing that the writ petitioner shall be treated as a beneficiary under the award dated 18/12/2000 as against the mis-spelt name of “Bindu Chandra Borah” appearing therein.

¶22

In the event of any claim arising in future on account of any other person claiming by the name of “Bindu Chandra Borah”, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 shall stand indemnified and the matter will be appropriately dealt with by the Court in an appropriate proceeding, as and when the occasion arises.

¶23

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

sukhamay

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Binod Chandra Borah @ Bindu Chandra Borah v. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Chandra Borah @ Bindu Chandra Borah v. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanchayetta Kashyap Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Roopa Dewanji Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Hafizur Rahman, Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kajal Kumar Singha Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bhabananda Pathak Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Semsonsing Bey and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 24 Ors.