Ghana Gogoi and 11 Ors. V. Oil India Ltd. and 2 Ors.

WP(C)/3175/2017

AI Insights

The case involves a group of petitioners who were Graduate Engineer Trainees (GET) at Oil India Limited (OIL) prior to its nationalization on October 14, 1981. Post-nationalization, they were absorbed into a new pension scheme but later found their names removed from the list of pensionable executives without notice. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their claims for pensionary benefits under the Oil India Pension Fund (OIPF), arguing that they were entitled to benefits as they were appointed before nationalization and had continued as employees under the same terms. The court examined the legal framework of the Acquisition Act of 1981, the terms of the pension schemes, and the specific circumstances of the petitioners' appointments and service.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792879 (HC-GAUHATI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Pensioners' Association, Ex-Assam Oil Officers & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr., New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Abhilash Jewellery
• Laws Referred To: Burmah Oil Company (Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the undertaking in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. (India Trading) Limited) Act, 1981, Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, Oil India Pension Fund (OIPF) Rules
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M K CHOUDHURY
• Assessee Lawyers: R B GOSWAMI
• Keywords: Burma Oil (India) Pension Fund; Graduate Engineer Trainees; Nationalization; Oil India Pension Fund; Pensionary benefits
• Section: 11; 6; 12

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/30 GAHC010041292017 2025:GAU-AS:16326 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5845/2017 GHANA GOGOI and 11 ORS. S/O- LATE THANURAM GOGOI, H NO. 42, HOME SWEET HOME SOS ROAD, NEAR AIRPORT, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781015 2: PROTUL BARUAH S/O- LATE DR NALIN BARUAH E-25 OIL HOUSING COLONY DULIAJAN PIN- 786602 3: PRALAY BORUWA LATE JAGANNATH BORUWA B-104 VIJAYA HEIGHT APARTMENT GANESH MANDIR PATH NEW GUWAHATI- 781020 4: PRANAB BARUAH S/O- LATE JUGA KANTA BARUAH FLAT NO.3 E ANUSUYA ASHIRBAD APARTMENT VIP ROAD SIX MILE GUWAHATI PIN- 781022 5: DINESH CHANDRA DEKA S/O- LATE BADAN CHANDRA DEKA F-31 OIL HOUSING COLONY DULIAJAN PIN- 786603 Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 2/30 6: ULFATUR RAHMAN BORAH S/O- LATE MUHIBUR RAHMAN BORAH FLAT-2B/T-2 PROTECH HERITAGE MOTHER TERESA ROAD GUWAHATI PIN- 781024 7: BUDHINDRA GOSWAMI LT. JIBON CHANDRA GOSWAMI H NO. 38 HOME SWEET HOME SOS ROAD NEAR LOKPRIYA GNB AIRPORT GHY- 15 8: SWADESH DEY S/O- LATE HARIPADA DEY D-4 PRAGATI SRINILOY APARTMENT SRINAGAR KAKINADA- 533003 ANDHRA PRADESH 9: ARVIND JAINI S/O- LATE SURENDRA KUMAR JAINI B-101 ELDECO APARTMENT SECTOR-4 VAISHALI APARTMENT GHAZIABAD PIN- 201012 UP 10: DILIP KUMAR DUTTA S/O- LATE KAMAL CHANDRA DUTTA FLAT D-4 JAGDAMBA APARETMENT MONALISHA PATH MOTHER TERESA ROAD GHY- 24 11: PRASANTA KUMAR KALITA S/O- LATE MAHENDRA NATH KALITA 17 P LANE MILAN NAGAR WEST P.O- C R BUILDING Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 3/30 DIBRUGARH- 786003 12: IBI RAJKHOWA W/O- BRAJANGA RAJKHOWA NIRMALI BRAJADHAM KADAMBARI NATUN NIRMALI GAON P.O- CR BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 78600 VERSUS OIL INDIA LTD. and 2 ORS. DULIAJAN, DIST- DIBRUGARH REGD OFFICE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MD, P.O- DULIAJAN, PIN- 786602 2:THE CHAIRMAN CUM MD OIL INDIA LTD. PLOT NO. 19 SECTOR 16 A NOIDA UP PIN- 201301 3:THE OIL INDIA PENSION FUND P.O- DULIAJAN DIST- DIBRUGARH 786602 REP. BY ITS SECRETAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B K BHATTACHARJEE, MR. U K NAIR (P 1 TO 12),MS. M D BORAH (P 1 TO 12),MR R B GOSWAMI (P 1 TO 12),DR.R SARMAH,MRS.P SAHA Advocate for the Respondent : , SC, OIL,MR.S N SARMA Linked Case : WP(C)/3175/2017 GHANA GOGOI and 11 ORS. S/O. LT. THANURAM GOGOI H/N. 42 HOME SWEET HOME SOS ROAD NEAR AIRPORT Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 4/30 GUWAHATI PIN-781015. 2: PROTUL BARUAH S/O. LT. DR. NALIN BARUAH R-25 OIL HOUSING COLONY DULIAJAN PIN-786602. 3: PRALAY BORUWA LT. JAGANNATH BORUWA B-104 VIJAYA HEIGHT APARTMENT GANESH MANDIR PATH NEW GUWAHATI-781020. 4: PRANAB BARUAH S/O. LT. JUGA KANTA BARUAH FLAT NO. 3E ANUSUYA ASHIRBAD APARTMENT VIP ROAD SIX MILE GUWAHATI PIN-781022. 5: DINESH CHANDRA DEKA S/O. LT. BADAN CHANDRA DEKA F-31 OIL HOUSING COLONY DULIAJAN PIN-786603. 6: ULFATUR RAHMAN BORAH S/O. LT. MUHIBUR RAHMAN BORAH FLAT- 2B/T-2 PROTECH HERITAGE MOTHER TERESA ROAD GUWAHATI- PIN.-781024. 7: BUDHINDRA GOSWAMI LT. JIBON CHANDRA GOSWAMI HOUSE NO. 38 Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 5/30 HOME SWEET HOME SOS ROAD NEAR LOKPRIYA G.N.B. AIRPORT GUWAHATI-781015. 8: SWADESH DEY S/O. LT. HARIPADA DEY D-4 PRAGATI SRINILOY APARTMENT SRINAGAR KAKINDADA- 533003 ANDHRA PRADESH. 9: ARVIND JAINI S/O. LT. SURENDRA KUMAR JAINI B-101 ELDECO APARTMENT SECTOR-4 VAISHALI GHAZIABAD PIN-201012 UTTAR PRADESH. 10: DILIP KUMAR DUTTA S/O. LT. KAMAL CHANDRA DUTTA FLAT D/4 JAGADAMBA APARTMENT MONALISA PATH MOTHER TERESA ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 11: PRASANTA KUMAR KALITA S/O. LT. MAHENDRA NATH KALITA 17 P-LANE MILAN NAGAR WEST P.O. CR BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003. 12: IBI RAJKHOWA W/O. BRAJANGA RAJKHOWA NIRMALI BRAJADHAM KADAMBARI NATUN NIRMALI GAON Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 6/30 P.O. CR BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003. VERSUS OIL INDIA LTD.and 2 ORS. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH REGISTRATION OFFICE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR P.O. DULIAJAN PIN-786602. 2:THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR OIL INDIA LTD. PLOT NO. 19 SECTOR 16 A NOIDA UTTAR PRADERSH PIN-201301. 3:THE OIL INDIA PENSION FUND TRUST P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH 786602 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ------------ Advocate for : MS.P SAHA Advocate for : MR.M HUSSAINR- 1 2and3 appearing for OIL INDIA LTD.and 2 ORS. :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 18.11.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 7/30 Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. R. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents/Oil India Limited. 2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the impugned orders/communications dated 01.06.2017 & 03.07.2017, issued by the Executive Director (HR), for Chairman & Managing Director, Oil India Limited, whereby their claims for pensionary benefits under Oil India Pension Fund, applicable to pre-Nationalization employees, has been rejected. The petitioners prayed for a direction to grant pensionary benefits to them from its due date along with arrears. 3. Having considered that issue involved in these writ petitions is similar on facts and law, same were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they joined Oil India Limited (‘OIL’, for short) as Graduate Engineer Trainees (‘GET’, for short) in the year 1980 and 1981 and subsequently retired on attaining the age of superannuation. On 14.10.1981, the OIL was nationalized through an Act of the Parliament of India, namely, the Burmah Oil Company [Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the undertaking in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. (India Trading) Limited] Act, 1981 (‘Acquisition Act of 1981’, for short). The petitioners claim that they were appointed prior to Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 8/30 nationalization and their pensionary benefits were governed by the Burma Oil (India) Pension Fund (‘BOIPF’, for short), a superannuation fund to which the Company contributed during the course of their employment. They were also allotted unique membership numbers used throughout their service for accessing employment-related benefits and, subsequently, for superannuation entitlements. 5. Upon nationalization, although their services were transferred to the newly constituted OIL, the petitioners continued to be members of the existing Provident Fund and Pension Fund schemes, including the Family Pension Scheme. After enactment of the Acquisition Act of 1981, OIL was obligated to create a new pension fund equivalent to the existing BOIPF so that the right of the beneficiaries are not prejudiced. 6. The Board of Directors of OIL, in its 210th meeting held on 24.02.1982, decided to introduce the Executive Trainee Scheme to attract future recruits, which included an enhanced stipend and execution of a bond requiring service for three years upon completion of training. The benefits of this scheme were also extended to the petitioners whose services stood transferred under Section 11(1) of the Acquisition Act of 1981. Accordingly, the petitioners executed bonds undertaking to serve the Company for three years after confirmation as Executives. Even prior to completion of the stipulated training period, they were appointed as Engineer Executives with effect from 24.02.1982 and their services were regularized from their initial date of appointment as GET. 7. Pursuant thereto, on 30.08.1982, a Trust Deed was executed establishing the Oil India Pension Fund (‘OIPF’, for short) for the purpose of providing pensionary benefits to employees, with effect from 14.10.1981. The new OIPF Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 9/30 was created with objectives identical to BOIPF and mandated the Trustee to provide pension to eligible employees in accordance with the prescribed Rules. Consequently, the funds of the erstwhile pension scheme, including all contributions made by the Company in respect of its employees, were transferred to the new OIPF. 8. On 01.11.1983, OIL issued a letter rationalizing the pay structure of its Executives. Under Point 1.9.1 of the said letter, it was reaffirmed that there would be no change in the Provident Fund Rules and pensionary benefits would continue to apply to employees on the rolls as of 14.10.1981. Consequently, the petitioners' names appeared in the rolls of pensionable executives as of November 1996, as maintained by the Secretary, OIPF. However, without notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, OIL unilaterally and arbitrarily removed the petitioners' names from the list of pensionable executives under the OIPF, despite having issued several certificates and communications confirming that the petitioners were members of the OIPF and employees prior to 14.10.1981, thereby reflecting that they were entitled to superannuation benefits under the said fund. The petitioners were thereafter stated to be eligible only under a Defined Contribution Pension Scheme introduced in 2007, namely, the Oil India Superannuation Benefit Scheme Fund (\"OISBFS\", for short). 9. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations dated 30.01.2013, 16.04.2014, 16.07.2014, and 30.09.2016 to the OIL authorities. Pursuant thereto, the Director (HR), vide Note dated 07.08.2014, forwarded a recommendation to the HRM Committee to advise the Board of Directors that the petitioners were eligible for pension under the OIPF, as reflected in Point 6.0 of the said Note. However, throughout this period, no communication was issued by either the Board of Directors or the OIPF Trust regarding the Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 10/30 petitioners’ exclusion from the OIPF. Apprehending that no decision would be forthcoming on their representations, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3175/2017. During its pendency and after receipt of notice of motion therein, the respondent authorities issued the impugned communication dated 01.06.2017 rejecting the petitioners’ claim for pensionary benefits under the OIPF, based on the decision of the Board of Directors in its 477th meeting held on 28.04.2017. 10. Mr. R. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were appointed in Oil India Limited prior to 14.10.1981 as Graduate Engineer Trainees (GET) and their services stood transferred to OIL upon nationalization under Section 11 of the Acquisition Act of 1981 without any alteration to their terms and conditions of service. Their initial date of appointment as GET has been consistently recognized by the Company for all service‐related purposes, including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, gratuity and provident fund. Upon completion of training, they were confirmed and appointed as Engineer Executives with effect from 24.02.1982 and their services were regularized from their initial date of appointment. The said appointment and confirmation took place prior to the framing and operation of the Oil India Pension Fund (OIPF) Rules. 11. He submits that Section 11 of the Acquisition Act of 1981 guarantees continuity of service to all whole‐time officers and other employees of the erstwhile company and protects their rights to pension, gratuity and other superannuation benefits. The expression “other employees” is wide enough to include personnel who had not yet been confirmed as officers at the time of nationalization. The respondents cannot now contend that a GET is not an employee, particularly when the petitioners were never treated as apprentices in Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 11/30 terms of the Apprentices Act, no certificate of apprenticeship was issued, and they discharged regular executive functions from the inception. Even assuming the terms of initial engagement fell within the purview of the Apprentices Act, the statute does not prohibit service benefits being granted to such trainees; rather Section 22(2) recognizes binding contractual obligations that permit post‐ training employment and consequential benefits. 12. He submits that the statutory deductions towards Provident Fund and Family Pension were made from the petitioners’ salary from the date of their initial appointment, which demonstrates the existence of an employer and employee relationship. Under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act, such deductions are permissible only with respect to employees. Moreover, under the Burma Oil (India) Pension Fund Rules, membership commenced from the date such deductions were made. The contribution statements reflect that PF deductions were first credited to the old Burma Oil Fund till 13.10.1981 and thereafter transferred to the new OIPF constituted pursuant to the Trust Deed dated 30.08.1982, which was operative with effect from 14.10.1981. The new fund was created with the same objects and safeguards so that the rights of beneficiaries under the former fund are in no manner diminished. Accordingly, all funds, including employer contributions, were transferred to OIPF. The respondents having treated the petitioners as employees for the purpose of statutory deductions cannot deny pensionary benefits on the premise that they were trainees. 13. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, submits that the letter dated 01.11.1983 rationalizing pay of executives reaffirmed that there was no change to Provident Fund rules and specifically reiterated that the benefits of the pension scheme would be available to employees of the company as on 14.10.1981. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 12/30 Consequently, the names of the petitioners appeared in the executive rolls of pensionable employees, including the roll maintained in November 1996 by the Secretary, OIPF. The petitioners were also issued various communications certifying that they were members of OIPF and were entitled to superannuation benefits under the said fund. Despite such consistent recognition, their names were subsequently removed from the list of pensionable executives without notice or opportunity of hearing. Such unilateral exclusion is arbitrary and contrary to the statutory protections under the Acquisition Act of 1981 and the OIPF Rules. The rationalization letter, being an administrative instruction, cannot override statutory rights or extinguish pre‐existing pension entitlements. 14. It is further submitted that merely because the petitioners receive pension under the Oil India Employees’ Pension Fund (OIEPF), their entitlement under OIPF cannot be denied. The petitioners do not dispute receipt of benefits under OIEPF; however, the claim in the present writ petition pertains specifically to pension under OIPF, which is a vested right flowing from their pre‐ nationalization service conditions. The subsequent introduction of the Defined Contribution Scheme called Oil India Superannuation Benefit Scheme Fund (OISBFS) in 2007 cannot displace their pre‐existing rights under OIPF. Pension is not a bounty but a statutory vesting of deferred wages and cannot be substituted or diminished by later schemes introduced to address internal financial exigencies of the respondent company. 15. Mr. Goswami, Learned counsel submits that the disputes relating to eligibility under OIPF are required to be adjudicated by the Trustees of the Fund under the governing rules and not by the Board of Directors. The Board, therefore, had no jurisdiction to reject the petitioners’ claim. The impugned order dated 01.06.2017 has been issued only after notice was issued in WP(C) Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 13/30 No. 3175/2017, is thus without authority of law and liable to be set aside. 16. Mr. Goswami submits that under Sections 6, 11 and 12 of the Acquisition Act of 1981, all superannuation benefits of the erstwhile company vested in Oil India Limited and were to be preserved in favour of existing beneficiaries. The respondents cannot selectively grant some benefits such as PF and family pension from the date of initial appointment while denying pension under OIPF, when the entire statutory scheme mandates parity and continuity of service benefits post‐nationalization. Any limitation or alteration to such rights could only be made through legislative amendment and not by unilateral administrative or executive action. He, therefore, submits that in view of the statutory protections under the Acquisition Act of 1981, the consistent recognition of the petitioners as pensionable employees from the date of initial appointment, and the lack of authority and jurisdiction on the part of the Board of Directors to deny their claim, this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2017 and direct the respondents to forthwith extend such benefits to the petitioners with all arrears and admissible interest. 17. In support of his submissions, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pensioners’ Association, Ex-Assam Oil Officers & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 265. 18. On the other hand, Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent inviting applications for training as Graduate Engineer Trainees (GET), prior to nationalization on 14.10.1981, the petitioners applied for and were engaged as Apprentices-cum-Trainees under the GET Scheme of the respondent Company. Their engagement was governed by the terms and Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 14/30 conditions set out in the appointment letters offering them training engagement, which the petitioners accepted without any protest. The petitioners had continued as apprentices-cum-trainees till nationalization on 14.10.1981, and thereafter, upon nationalization, the respondent Company framed a new Executive Trainee Scheme, under which the previous GET engagement stood superseded and fresh offers were made to the petitioners under the said scheme. Subsequently, upon selection for appointment to the Executive Cadre, they were issued fresh appointment letters, wherein it is specifically provided that their employment would be governed by the terms applicable post- nationalization, including any changes introduced consequent to the Company becoming a public sector undertaking. 19. He submits that prior to nationalization, the respondent Company had three categories of employees, namely, Executive Cadre employees, Workmen Cadre employees, and temporary employees engaged for a fixed term. Persons appointed in the Executive and Workmen Cadres of the Company were the regular and permanent employees entitled to pensionary benefits. In addition, with a view to creating a trained pool of candidates from whom the Company could select the most suitable persons for appointment to the Executive Cadre, the Respondent Company had formulated the GET Scheme for engagement of apprentices-cum-trainees for a period of 2 (two) years. Upon successful completion of the training, the candidates were required to undergo a written test and interview. From amongst such apprentices-cum-trainees, those who qualified in the written test and interview were selected for appointment to the Executive Cadre of the Company, subject to availability of vacancies. 20. Learned Senior Counsel submits that although the petitioners claim eligibility for pension under Clause 8(b) of the Oil India Pension Fund (OIPF) on Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 15/30 the premise that they were appointed prior to 14.10.1981, they have failed to annex their pre-nationalization engagement letters as GET as well as their post- nationalization Executive Trainee engagement letters. It is further contended that the petitioners never challenged the terms of appointment under the Executive Cadre nor the OIPF stipulation that the existing pension scheme would be restricted to executives on the rolls as on 13.10.1981, and that executives joining service on or after 14.10.1981 would not be entitled to the said pension. 21. He submits that under Rule 8(b) of the OIPF Rules, only those who were existing employees on 14.10.1981 or probationers who were later confirmed in accordance with standing orders would qualify as members of OIPF. Merely being a GET was not sufficient to make one an \"employee\" within the meaning of said clause. Their letters of engagement clearly provide that the first year of training was governed by the Apprentices Act, 1973, and the second year by contract, with no obligation on the Company to absorb them even after completion of training. They became executives only upon appointment after 14.10.1981, and therefore fall outside the class of pensionable employees. 22. He further relies on the rationalization of pay and perquisites order dated 01.11.1983, which reiterates that the existing pension scheme shall be restricted to those executives on the rolls as on 13.10.1981, and that executives joining on or after 14.10.1981 would not be entitled to pension under the old scheme. The petitioners, have never challenged the said terms of appointment order, therefore, cannot now seek pensionary benefits contrary to the explicit terms governing their service conditions. 23. He submits that the petitioners are already receiving pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. More so, the petitioner Nos. 6 and 8 are Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 16/30 additionally drawing pension under the Oil India Superannuation Benefit Scheme Fund (OISBSF). Since OISBSF is not applicable to apprentices, trainees, temporary employees, contract appointees, or those covered under the Oil India Pension Scheme, the fact that Petitioners 6 and 8 are beneficiaries of OISBSF itself shows that they are ineligible for OIPF benefits. Both OIPF and OISBSF are non-contributory schemes entirely funded by the Company, and therefore mutually exclusive. 24. Regarding the petitioners' reliance on Provident Fund deductions to claim employee status, he submits that at the relevant time, the Company made PF deductions from stipends of apprentices-cum-trainees by way of abundant caution, which was subsequently discontinued. Such deductions do not confer employee status nor imply eligibility under OIPF. These deductions were in compliance with statutory obligations under the EPF Act, which applies to all persons working in an establishment employing more than 20 persons, including casual, temporary, and contract labour. Thus, such deductions do not equate to regular employment or confer pension entitlement under OIPF. 25. It is further submitted that the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 are statutory schemes under the EPF Act and apply irrespective of permanent employment, whereas OIPF is a non- statutory benefit exclusively for pre-nationalization executive employees. The OISBSF Trust Deed, given retrospective effect from 01.01.2007, applies to executives in regular pay scale on the rolls as of that date as well as new entrants thereafter, and the petitioners fall under this category, not OIPF. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and as such same may be dismissed. 26. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance of the Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 17/30 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 402, to submit that non-registration of the contract will not change the character of the apprentice and they will not acquire the status of a workmen. Once an incumbent is appointed as an apprentice he will continue to be apprentice unless a formal order of appointment follows. He further relied on the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Abhilash Jewellery, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 661, to submit that an apprentice is a trainee and not an employee. Even if he is given a stipend, that does not mean that there is a relationship of master and servant between the company and the apprentice. 27. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 28. The OIL was nationalized through an Act, i.e. the Burmah Oil Company [Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the undertaking in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. (India Trading) Limited] Act, 1981 on 14.10.1981. The petitioners claim that they were appointed prior to nationalization and their pensionary benefits were governed by BOIPF, a superannuation fund to which the Company contributed in the course of employment. Admittedly, the petitioners joined OIL as Graduate Engineer Trainees in the year 1980 and 1981 pursuant to introduction of the Executive Trainee Scheme which provided an enhanced stipend and execution of a bond requiring service for three years upon completion of training. Thereafter, pursuant to selection process the petitioners were appointed as Engineer Executives with effect from 24.02.1982 and subsequently retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 18/30 29. Vide dated 01.11.1983, the OIL rationalized the pay structure of its Executives. Point 1.9.1, provides that there would be no change in the Provident Fund Rules and pensionary benefits would continue to apply to employees on the rolls as of 14.10.1981. It appears that initially, the petitioners' names appeared in the rolls of pensionable executives as of November 1996, as maintained by the Secretary, OIPF. However, later the names of the petitioners were removed from the list of pensionable executives under the OIPF. Subsequently, the petitioners were made eligible under a Defined Contribution Pension Scheme introduced in 2007, namely, the Oil India Superannuation Benefit Scheme Fund. The petitioners submitted various representations to the OIL authorities. When no communication was issued by either the Board of Directors or the OIPF Trust regarding the petitioners’ exclusion from the OIPF, WP(C) No. 3175/2017 was filed and during the pendency of writ petition, the respondent authorities issued the impugned order/communication dated 01.06.2017 rejecting the petitioners’ claim for pension under the OIPF, based on the decision of the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 28.04.2017. 30. Section 11 of the Acquisition Act of 1981 guarantees continuity of service to all whole‐time officers and other employees of the erstwhile company and protects their rights to pension, gratuity and other superannuation benefits. Admittedly, since the petitioner joined as GET, such trainee cannot be construed to be whole-time employees rather they were apprentices. Mere non issuance of certificate of apprenticeship would not make them regular employees, that too when their engagement clearly reflects as trainee with certain stipulated conditions. 31. For better appreciation, Sections 6, 11 and 12 of the Acquisition Act of 1981, deemed apposite to be referred and considered. These provisions Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 19/30 regulate, inter alia, all the superannuation benefits of the erstwhile company vested in OIL and were to be preserved in favour of existing beneficiaries. The sections are extracted herein under:- “6. General effect of vesting.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the undertakings of each specified company shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, powers, authorities and privileges and all property, movable and immovable, including any designs, trade marks, trade names, styles of labelling, station decor or any distinctive colour schemes, cash balances, reserve funds, book debts, investments and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were, immediately before the appointed day, in the ownership, possession, power or control of the specified company, in relation to its undertakings in India, and all books of account, registers, records and all othIer documents of whatever nature relating thereto and shall also be deemed to include all borrowings, liabilities (including the liability for the payment of taxes, if any, and for the payment of any pension and other pensionary benefits to the persons employed in relation to its undertakings in India) and obligations of whatever kind of the specified company in relation to its undertakings in India: Provided that remittances outside India of any money for the payment of pension or other pensionary benefits shall be subject to the rules and regulations for the time being in force in relation to such remittances. (2) The undertakings in India of \"The Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Limited\" shall not include the shares held by the said company in the Tin Plate Company of India Limited, a company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and having its registered office at 4, Bankshall Street, Calcutta-700001. (3) The profits earned, or the losses suffered, as the case may be, by each specified company in relation to its undertakings in India from the 1st day of January, 1977, shall be payable to, or, as the case may be, borne by, the Central Government. (4) Unless otherwise expressly provided by this Act, all deeds, bonds, agreements, powers of attorney, grants of legal representation and other instruments of whatever nature in relation to the undertakings in India of a specified company subsisting or having effect immediately before the appointed day, and to which the specified company is a party or which are in favour of the specified company shall be of as full force and effect against or in favour of the Central Government and may be enforced or acted as fully and effectively as if in the place of the specified company, the Central Government had been a party thereto or as if they had been issued in favour of the Central Government. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 20/30 (5) If, on the appointed day, any suit, appeal or other proceeding of whatever nature (including proceeding before any authority) in relation to the undertakings in India of a specified company which have been transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government under Section 5, is pending by or against that specified company, the same shall not abate, be discontinued or be, in any way, prejudicially affected by reason of the transfer of the undertakings in India of the specified company or of anything contained in this Act but the suit, appeal or other proceeding may be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against the Central Government. (6) The Promotion Agreement and Supplemental Agreement entered into on the 14th day of January, 1958 and the 16th day of February, 1959, respectively, to which the Central Government, the Burmah Oil Company and the Assam Oil Company Limited were parties, and the Adopting Agreement and the Second Supplemental Agreement entered into on the 14th day of March, 1959 and the 27th day of July. 1961, respectively, to which the Central Government the Burmah Oil Company, the Assam Oil Company Limited and Oil India Limited, were parties shall be deemed to have been terminated with effect from the 1st day of January, 1977, and accordingly the rights, liabilities and obligations arising out of such Agreements shall be deemed to have been extinguished on and from that date: Provided that clause 12 of the said Second Supplemental Agreement shall, in so far as it relates to the rights, liabilities and obligations of Oil India Limited, continue in force up to and inclusive of the financial year of that company ending on the 31st day of March, 1982. 11. Transfer of service of existing employees of the specified companies.-(1) Every whole-time officer or other employee of a specified company who was, immediately before the appointed day, employed by that company in connection with its undertakings in India, and every whole-time officer or other employee of a specified company who was, immediately before the appointed day, temporarily holding any assignment outside India shall, on the appointed day, become an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the Central Government or the concerned Government company (hereinafter referred to as the successor Government company) in which the right, title and interest of the specified company in relation to its undertakings in India have vested under this Act and shall hold office or service under the Central Government, or the successor Government company, as the case may be, on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if there had been no such vesting and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment under the Central Government or the successor Government company is duly terminated or until his remuneration and conditions of service are duly altered by the Central Government or the successor Government company. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 21/30 (2) Subject to rules made in this behalf under Section 22, every whole-time officer or other employee of Oil India who was, immediately before the appointed day. employed by it in India, and every whole-time officer or other employee of Oil India who was, immediately before the appointed day, temporarily holding any assignment outside India shall, on and from that day, continue to be an officer or other employee. of Oil India on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as are admissible to him immediately before that day and shall continue to hold such office unless and until his employment under Oil India is duly terminated or until his remuneration and conditions of service are duly altered by that company. (3) If any question arises as to whether any person was a whole-time officer or other employee of a specified company, or as to whether any officer or other employee was employed wholly or mainly in connection with the undertakings of that company in India immediately before the appointed day, or whether any whole-time officer or other employee of a specified company was temporarily holding any assignment outside India, the question shall be referred, within a period of two years from the appointed day, to the Central Government which shall, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the person concerned in the matter, decide it in such manner as it thinks fit and such decision shall be final. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), or in any other law for the time being in force, the transfer of the services of any officer or other employee, under sub-section (1), shall not entitle any such officer or other employee to any compensation or gratuity under those Acts or such other law, and no such claim shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or other authority. 12. Provident, superannuation, welfare fund, etc.-(1) Where a provident, superannuation, welfare or other fund has been established by a specified company for the benefit of the persons employed by it in connection with its undertakings in India, or for the benefit of such persons and persons employed by Oil India, the moneys relatable to the employees- (a) whose services are transferred by or under this Act to the Central Government or the successor Government company, or, as the case may be, continued with Oil India, or (b) who are in receipt of pension or other pensionary benefits immediately before the appointed day, Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 22/30 shall, out of the moneys standing, on that day, day, to the credit of such provident, Superannuation, welfare or other fund, stand transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government or the successor Government company, or Oil India, as the case may be, free from any trust that may have been constituted by the specified company in respect thereof. (2) The moneys which stand transferred, under sub-section (1), to the Central Government or the successor Government company or Oil India shall be dealt with by the Central Government or that company, or Oil India, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The successor Government company or Oil India, as the case may be, shall, as soon as may be after the appointed day, constitute, in respect of the moneys and other assets which are transferred to, and vested in, it under this section, one or more trusts having objects as similar to the objects of the existing trust, as in the circumstances may be practicable; so, however, that the rights and interests of the beneficiaries of the trust referred to in sub-section (1) are not, in any way, prejudiced or diminished. (4) Where all the moneys and other assets belonging to an existing trust are transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government, or the successor Government company or Oil India under this section, the trustees of such trust shall, as from the date of such vesting, stand discharged from the trust except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the date of such vesting.” 32. Reading of the above provisions show that the undertakings of each specified company shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, powers, authorities and privileges and all property, movable and immovable, including any designs, trade marks, trade names, styles of labelling, station decor or any distinctive colour schemes, cash balances, reserve funds, book debts, investments and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were, immediately before the appointed day, in the ownership, possession, power or control of the specified company, in relation to its undertakings in India, and all books of account, registers, records and all other documents of Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 23/30 whatever nature relating thereto and shall also be deemed to include all borrowings, liabilities and for the payment of any pension and other pensionary benefits to the persons employed in relation to its undertakings in India and obligations of whatever kind of the specified company in relation to its undertakings in India, provided that remittances outside India of any money for the payment of pension or other pensionary benefits shall be subject to the rules and regulations for the time being in force in relation to such remittances. 33. It further reflects that every whole-time officer or other employees of a specified company who were, immediately before the appointed day, become an officer or other employee of the Central Government or the concerned Government company in which the right, title and interest of the specified company in relation to its undertakings in India have vested under the Act and shall hold office or service under the Central Government, or the successor Government company, on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if there had been no such vesting and shall continue to do so unless and until their employment under the Central Government or the successor Government company is duly terminated or until his remuneration and conditions of service are duly altered by the Central Government or the successor Government company. Subject to rules made in this behalf under Section 22, every whole-time officer or other employee of Oil India who was, immediately before the appointed day, continue to be an officer or other employee of Oil India on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as are admissible to him immediately before that day and shall continue to hold such office unless and until his employment under Oil India is duly terminated or until his remuneration Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 24/30 and conditions of service are duly altered by that company. 34. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pensioners’ Association (supra), bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that the Central Government or the successor company cannot claim to have totally snapped all its connections with the retired employees of the oil companies on the company being taken over, as it would be clear from Section 6 that the liabilities of the Central Government or the successor company would include the payment of any pension and other pensionary benefits to the persons employed in relation to the specified company. Thus, the liability of pension or pensionary benefits of the employees of the specified companies cannot be denied. The liabilities in relation to pension and pensionary benefits of the employees of the specified companies are also taken over by the Central Government, or the successor company. 35. As per Section 12 the Central Government or successor company after the appointed day shall constitute one or more trusts in respect of the monies and other assets which are transferred or vested in government of the successor company having objects similar to the existing trust without prejudice to the existing rights of the beneficiaries of the trust. 36. There is no dispute that pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications for training as GET, prior to nationalization, the petitioners were engaged as Trainees under the GET Scheme. Their engagement was governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment order which the petitioners accepted without any demur. The petitioners had continued as trainees till Nationalization on 14.10.1981, and thereafter, fresh offers were made to the petitioners. Upon selection for appointment to the Executive Cadre, they were appointed a fresh Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 25/30 as Engineer Executives on different posts, wherein it is provided that their employment would be governed by the terms applicable post-Nationalization, including any changes introduced consequent to the OIL becoming a public sector undertaking. 37. It is seen that prior to Nationalization, the OIL had three categories of employees, namely- Executive Cadre employees, Workmen Cadre employees, and temporary employees engaged for a fixed term. Persons appointed in the Executive and Workmen Cadres of the Company were the regular and permanent employees entitled to pensionary benefits. To create a trained pool of candidates from whom the Company could select the most suitable persons for appointment to the Executive Cadre, the OIL had formulated a Graduate Engineering Trainee (GET) Scheme for engagement of trainees for a period of 2 (two) years. The petitioners had never challenged the terms of appointment as Executive Cadre nor the OIPF stipulation that the existing pension scheme would be restricted to executives working on regular basis and the executives joining service on or after 14.10.1981 would not be entitled to the said pension. 38. Perusal of Rule 8(b) of the OIPF Rules, clearly shows that only those who were the existing employees on 14.10.1981 or probationers who were later confirmed in accordance with standing orders would qualify as members of OIPF. The petitioners became executives only upon appointment in the year 1982, and therefore would fall outside the pensionable employees. The rationalization of pay and perquisites order dated 01.11.1983, states that the existing pension scheme shall be restricted to those executives on the rolls as on 13.10.1981, and that executives joining on or after 14.10.1981 would not be entitled to pension under the old scheme. The petitioners, having been not challenged the said terms of appointment order, would not be entitled for Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 26/30 pensionary benefits. The petitioners became executives only upon appointment in the year 1982, and therefore falls outside the pensionable employees. Moreover, the petitioners are stated to be receiving pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and particularly, the petitioner Nos. 6 and 8 are additionally drawing pension under the OISBSF. 39. It is clear that the Pension Scheme has been framed and promulgated in pursuance of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act and it is in respect of employees who were working wholetime or regular and taken over as employees of the successor company with effect from the appointed day as well as those who were in receipt of pension or other pensionary benefits. The petitioners were admittedly trainees pre-Nationalization and have been appointed post Nationalization who become wholetime employees and thus, would not be entitled for pensionary benefits under the provisions of Act and rule or scheme providing benefits to the employees or retirees of pre Nationalisation and the existing fund created under the Scheme for pensionary benefits of the employees of the company and which fund was existing on the appointed day. Therefore, the petitioners who have not been the employees or retirees or members of the pensioners on the appointed day cannot claim pensionary benefits applicable to those employees or retirees of pre- Nationalisation. 40. In the case of Pensioners’ Association, Ex-Assam Oil Officers (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: “4. We feel that the above argument as advanced on behalf of the respondents needs to be closely examined and in connection therewith we may refer to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act which reads as under: \"6(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the undertakings of each Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 27/30 specified company shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, powers, authorities and privileges and all property, movable and immovable, including and designs, trade marks, trade names, style of labeling, station decor or any distinctive colour schemes, cash balances, reserve funds, book debts, investments and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were, immediately before the appointed company, in relation to its undertakings in India, and all books of account, registers, records and all other documents of whatever nature relating thereto and shall also be deemed to include all borrowings, liabilities ( including the liability for the payment of taxes, if any, and for the payment of any pension and other pensionary benefits to the persons employed in relation to its undertakings in India ) and obligations of whatever kind of the specified company in relation to its undertakings in India;\" A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the Central Government or the successor company cannot claim to have totally snapped all its connections with the retired employees of the oil companies on the company being taken over, as it would be clear from the later part of Section 6(1) that the liabilities of the Central Government or the successor company would include all borrowings, liability of payment of taxes if any, and for the payment of any pension and other pensionary benefits to the persons employed in relation to its undertakings in India namely, the specified company i.e. the Assam Oil Company Limited. Thus, the liability of pension or pensionary benefits of the employees of the specified companies (Assam Oil Company Limited) cannot be shed off in the manner tried to be done and canvassed by the respondents before us. The liabilities in relation to pension and pensionary benefits of the employees of the specified companies (Assam Oil Company Limited) are also very much taken over by the Central Government, or the successor company. We have already quoted Section 12 of the Act. To lay emphasis on sub-section (3) of Section 12 we would like to highlight that the Central Government or successor company after the appointed day shall constitute one or more trusts in respect of the monies and other assets which are transferred or vested in government of the successor company having objects similar to the existing trust without prejudice to the existing rights of the beneficiaries of the trust. 7. We may now examine the Scheme of 1983 which has been prepared and promulgated by the successor company for the employees who were working in the Assam Oil Company Ltd. and were taken over as employees of the successor company on the appointed day. It is titled as the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) Staff Pension Fund Trust Deed. The deed in its preface avers as follows: \"Whereas under section 12(1) of the Burmah Oil Company (Acquisition of shares of Oil India and of the undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Limited Act, 1981 (41 of 1981) (hereinafter Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 28/30 referred to as the \"Acquisition Act\"), the monies standing to the credit of the Assam Oil Staff Pension Fund (hereinafter referred to as the \"Existing Fund\"), a fund established for the benefit of the employees of the Assam Oil Company Limited, in respect of such employees whose services were transferred to the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the \"Transferred Employees\") and who were in receipt of pension or other pensionary benefits, stand transferred to and vested in the Corporation with effect from 14th October, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Appointed Day\"), free from any trust constituted by the Assam Oil Company Limited in respect thereof. AND WHEREAS the Existing Fund is an approved superannuation fund within the meaning of section 2(6) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; AND WHEREAS under section 12(3) of the Acquisition Act, the Company is required to establish a separate Pension Fund (hereinafter referred to as \"the Fund\"), in respect of the monies transferred to and vested in the Corporation as above, having objects as similar to the objects of the Existing Fund, so as to provide pension benefits to those Transferred Employees and other employees of the Corporation who shall be admitted as members of the Fund (hereinafter referred to as the \"Members\").\" (Emphasis supplied by us) It is thus clear from what has been quoted above that the Pension Scheme 1983, has been framed and promulgated in pursuance of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act and it is in respect of employees who were working and taken over as employees of the successor company with effect from the appointed day as well as those who were in receipt of pension or other pensionary benefits. It further mentions that the existing fund stood transferred and vested in Corporation with effect from 14th October, 1981 free from any trust constituted by the Assam Oil Company Limited in respect thereof. The fund as existed on the appointed day stood transferred and vested in the Central Government/successor company. We have already seen that the fund which was existing on that date, as constituted under the Scheme of 1973 was for the pensionary benefits of employees in service or retired before 14.10.1981. As per requirement of law under Section 12(3) of the Act, the objects of the 1983 Scheme are similar to the objects of the existing fund namely, the fund of 1973. The pension fund 1983 has been made effective from 14.10.1981. The fund then existing as constituted by the Assam Oil Company Limited stood transferred and vested in the successor company on the own showing of the respondents. It is totally incorrect to say that there existed no fund for pensionary benefits of the petitioners viz. retired employees of the Assam Oil Company Limited or that it did not vest in the successor company. The Trust Deed of 1983 does not talk of any partial transfer and vesting of the existing fund. A further examination of the scheme shows that the working of the staff pension Fund Rules of Indian Oil Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 29/30 Corporation Limited (AOD) is similar to the scheme of 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. The term transferred employee has been defined under rule 2(i) providing that the word transferred employee means an employee of the Assam Oil Company Limited who was on or before the appointed day a member of the existing fund and in respect of whom the money is lying to the credit in existing fund stood transferred or vested in the Corporation under Section 12(1) of the Act. The petitioners were undoubtedly the members of the existing fund namely, the fund created under the Scheme of 1973 for pensionary benefits of the employees of the company and which fund was existing on the appointed day. Therefore, under the definition of transferred employee the pensioners receiving pensionary benefit from the existing fund as on 14.10.1981 shall also be treated as transferred employees for the purposes of the Scheme of 1983 and further in the definition of the term member an employee of the Corporation includes a transferred employee. A perusal of the further details of the working of the Scheme of 1983 also shows that it functions in the same manner as did the 1973 Scheme i.e. by purchasing annuity from the LIC. Almost all the conditions are similar to that of the earlier scheme. The petitioners who have been the pensioner members of the 1973 Scheme on the appointed day cannot be deprived of the pensionary benefits of the corporation being very much the members of the scheme of 1983. That being the position the benefit of revised pension scheme of 1995 could not be denied to them.” 41. In the above case the petitioners were pensioners who had retired from service of Assam Oil Company Ltd on or before 13.10.1981 and in view of denial of benefits of revised pension scheme to them despite the decision in Subrata Sen case, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 6(1) of the Act makes it clear that the Central Government or the successor company cannot claim to have totally snapped all its connections with the retired employees of the oil companies on the taking over of the company. Therefore, the liability of pension or pensionary benefits of the employees of the specified companies (Assam Oil Company Limited) cannot be shed off in the manner tried to be done by the respondents. The liabilities in relation to pension and pensionary benefits of such employees were also very much taken over by the Central Government or the successor company. As per requirement of law under Section 12(3) of the Act, the objects of the 1983 Scheme were similar to Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 30/30 the objects of the existing Fund 1973. The Pension Fund of 1983 was made effective from 14-10-1981. The petitioners were undoubtedly the members of the existing Fund, namely, the Fund created under the Scheme of 1973 for pensionary benefits of the employees of the company and which Fund was existing on the appointed day. The petitioners who have been the pensioner members of the 1973 Scheme on the appointed day cannot be deprived of the pensionary benefits of the revised Pension Scheme of 1995. Therefore, in my view the facts of the above case is different from the present one as the petitioners herein were appointed in the year 1982 , i.e. after 1981-post Nationalization. Thus, the decision and observation of the Hon’ble supreme court in the above case would not be applicable. 42. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners having been become wholetime employees of the OIL after 1981 i.e. post Nationalization, are not entitled to the pensionary benefits as provided to the employees or retirees of pre-Nationalisation, but entitled only the post Nationalization scheme for pensionary benefits formulated in terms of the Nationalisation Act of 1981. 43. Writ petitions stand dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant Printed from counselvise.com "