Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010007312025 2026:GAU-AS:12870 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/165/2025 ONGC SRAMIK BAL A REGD TRADE UNION OF ONGC, ASSAM ASSET, NAZIRA REP. BY ITS GEN. SECRETARY MADHURJYA BORGOHAIN, AGE-34 YRS, S/O- BHUGESWAR BORGOHAIN, R/O- NAZIRA BOARDING ROAD, WARD NO-2, P.O AND P.S- NAZIRA, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785685 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 10 OTHERS REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL , GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01 2:OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED A STATUTORY BODY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT DEHRADUN UTTARAKHAND PIN-248001 3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHIEF HRD OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT TEL BHAVAN DEHRADUN UTTARAKHAND PIN-248001 4:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASSETT MANAGER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED ASSAM ASSETT P.O.- NAZIRA- 785640 DISTRICT- SIBSAGAR Page No.# 2/15 ASSAM PIN-785685 5:THE GROUP GENERAL MANAGER (HR) OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED ASSAM ASSETT P.O.- NAZIRA- 785640 DISTRICT- SIBSAGAR ASSAM PIN-785685 6:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASSETT MANAGER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED JORHAT ASSETT LUIT BHAWAN ONGC CINNAMARA COMPLEX P.O- CINNAMARA DIST- JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785704 7:THE CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) DWARKA NEW DELHI PIN-110075 8:THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN R.K MISSION ROAD BIRUBARI GUWAHATI-16 9:THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN R.K MISSION ROAD BIRUBARI GUWAHATI-16 10:THE PRESIDENT / GENERAL SECRETARY ONGC SHRAMIK ASSOCIATION ONGC ASSAM ASSETT NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR Page No.# 3/15 ASSAM PIN-785685 11:THE PRESIDENT/ GENERAL SECRETARY ONGC PURBANCHAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ONGC COLONY COMPLEX NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-78569 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. J. Saikia, Sr. Advocate Mr. J. Hatimuria, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. Gayan, CGC Mr. B. Choudhury, Advocate Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. Sarmah, Advocate Mr. K. Mohammed, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : Yes Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : No. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Hatimuria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. A. Gayan, the learned counsel appears on behalf Page No.# 4/15 of the Respondent Nos.1, 7, 8 & 9; Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 6; Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.10 and Mr. K. Mohammed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.11. PREFACE 2. The Petitioner is a Trade Union having its registered office at Milan Nagar, M.G. Road in the district of Sivasagar. Being aggrieved by the decision taken in the meeting dated 17.12.2024 whereby the Petitioner's request to conduct separate elections for each asset of the Respondent No.2 was rejected, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the election proceedings which was initiated by the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. The Petitioner has also sought for direction upon the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 to request the Respondent Nos.8 and 9 to initiate and conduct the process of verification of the membership of the Union in ONGC Limited for Assam Asset Nazira, Sivasagar only and also to initiate and conduct the process of verification of membership of the Union through a secret ballot in Assam Asset Nazira, Sivasagar of ONGC. Page No.# 5/15 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3. The Respondent ONGC used to recognize Trade Unions under the provisions of the Code of Discipline, adopted by the Central Employers and Workers Organizations in pursuance of the suggestions made in the Indian Labour Conference w.e.f. 01.06.1958. In terms with the said Code of Discipline, the ONGC confers recognition to the Union commanding majority on the basis of verification of the membership by the Central Industrial Relations Machinery of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. For that purpose, the ONGC adopted a policy for conferring recognition at the regional level, taking into consideration of the growth of its activity, as well as the multiplicity of Trade Unions. 4. On 13.07.1996, upon carrying out consultations with the recognized Unions in the meeting held with the Presidents and the General Secretaries to resort to verification of membership for ascertaining the majority character of the Union, a decision was taken to initiate a process of secret ballot. In that regard, a policy was formulated. 5. The Respondent ONGC further has sought the help to conduct the secret ballot through the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi and assured to extend all the infrastructural Page No.# 6/15 facilities to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to enable the smooth conduct the secret ballot. 6. It may not be out of place to mention that the present writ proceedings was initiated during the regime when the Code of Discipline was holding the field. The concept of granting recognition for the purpose of carrying out negotiation at present is given a statutory recognition by the Industrial Relations Code 2020 which came into operation w.e.f. 21.11.2025. This aspect would be apparent from a reading of Section 14 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 whereby in terms with Section 14(3), it is stipulated that if more than one Trade Unions of workers are registered under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 and are functioning in an industrial establishment, then the Trade Union having 50% or more workers on the muster roll of that industrial establishment, verified in such manner as may be prescribed, supporting that Trade Union shall be recognized by the employer of the industrial establishment as the sole negotiating Union of the workers. Section 14 of the said Industrial Relations Code, 2020 being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “14. (1) There shall be a negotiating union or a negotiating council, as the case may be, in an industrial establishment having registered Trade Union for negotiating with the employer of the industrial establishment, on such matters as may be prescribed. Page No.# 7/15 (2) Where only one Trade Union of workers registered under the provisions of this Chapter is functioning in an industrial establishment, then, the employer of such industrial establishment shall, subject to such criteria as may be prescribed, recognise such Trade Union as sole negotiating union of the workers. (3) If more than one Trade Union of workers registered under this Code are functioning in an industrial establishment, then, the Trade Union having fifty-one per cent. or more workers on the muster roll of that industrial establishment, verified in such manner as may be prescribed, supporting that Trade Union shall be recognised by the employer of the industrial establishment, as the sole negotiating union of the workers. (4) If more than one Trade Union of workers registered under this Code are functioning in an industrial establishment, and no such Trade Union has fifty-one per cent. or more of workers on the muster roll of that industrial establishment, verified in such manner as may be prescribed, supporting that Trade union, then, there shall be constituted by the employer of the industrial establishment, a negotiating council for negotiation on the matters referred to in sub- section (1), consisting of the representatives of such registered Trade Unions which have the support of not less than twenty per cent. of the total workers on the muster roll of that industrial establishment so verified and such representation shall be of one representative for each twenty per cent. and for the remainder after calculating the membership on each twenty per cent. (5) Where any negotiation on the matters referred to in sub- Page No.# 8/15 section (1) is held between an employer and a negotiating council constituted under sub-section (4), consequent upon such negotiation, any agreement is said to be reached, if it is agreed by the majority of the representatives of the Trade Unions in such negotiating council. (6) Any recognition made under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or the negotiating council constituted under sub-section (4) shall be valid for three years from the date of recognition or constitution or such further period not exceeding five years, in total, as may be mutually decided by the employer and the Trade Union, as the case may be. (7) The facilities to be provided by industrial establishment to a negotiating union or negotiating council shall be such as may be prescribed.” 7. In the backdrop of the above, it is now relevant to take note of that on the basis of the Code of Discipline so adopted by the Respondent ONGC, sector-wise, various constituencies have been recognized. This aspect would be apparent from a perusal of Paragraph No.10 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent ONGC. The Chart provided at Paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed by the Respondent ONGC is reproduced herein under:- Page No.# 9/15 Sector No. of Constituencies for recognition Name of Constituencies Mumbai 1 Munbai, Hazira & Uran Southern Sector 3 i) Chennai ii) Karaikal iii)Rajamundry and Kakinada Eastern Sector 2 i)Nazira/Sivasagar & Jorhat ii) Silchar Western Sector 3 i) Ahmedabad ii) Ankleshwar iii) Baroda, Mehsana, Cambay & Jodhpur Central Sector 2 i) Kolkata ii) Agartala HQ 1 Dehradun Total 12 8. At this stage, it is relevant to observe that when the Chart was provided, there were twelve recognized constituency. However, recently in the Mumbai Sector, the earlier constituency Page No.# 10/15 which covered Mumbai, Hazira and Uran was divided into two constituencies, i.e. Hazira and Revised Mumbai Constituency (excluding Hazira). 9. From a perusal of the above quoted Chart, in so far as the Eastern Sector is concerned, which specifically relates to Assam, there are two constituencies, one constituency is the Nazira/Sivasagar and Jorhat and the other is Silchar. 10. In the backdrop of the above, the dispute in the present proceedings is as to whether the single constituency of Nazira/Sivasagar and Jorhat is required to be bifurcated to two constituencies for the purpose of recognition of the Trade Union. 11. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Respondent ONGC are not inclined to bifurcate the two regions/assets, i.e. Nazira/Sivasagar and Jorhat rather the Respondent ONGC seeks to hold the secret ballot for recognizing the Trade Union combining the two assets of Nazira/Sivasagar and Jorhat. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the Respondent ONGC that the Respondent ONGC is an establishment by itself, however, with the growth of the activities leading to an increase in the number of projects, a policy was adopted for conferring recognition at regional level to keep the number of recognized Unions within the reasonable unit. It is further mentioned in their Page No.# 11/15 affidavit that upon the implementation of the Corporate Rejuvenate Campaign, the original concept remained no longer relevant and the concept of asset/basin/institute/plant/office was introduced. Under such circumstances, the policy of recognition of Unions has to be in tune with the manner in which the number of recognized Unions remains within reasonable limits. 12. Mr. P. J. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the elections should be held asset-wise and the Nazira/Sivasagar Unit being an asset by itself and cannot be clubbed with the Jorhat Unit which is also an asset by itself. In that regard, the learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that on an RTI application being made, the Authorities of the Respondent ONGC have duly informed that in respect to the election held at Rajamundry, the elections were held separately for each asset. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in respect of the Hazira Plant of the ONGC was a part of the Mumbai Sector and was clubbed with Mumbai and Uran. However, on 23.04.2026, it was decided that the Hazira Plant would be a separate asset, and therefore, the election for the Hazira Plant would be held separately from Mumbai and Uran. Page No.# 12/15 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 13. From a perusal of the communication dated 23.04.2026 upon which the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon, i.e. the creation of a separate constituency for Hazira Plant gives certain indication as to what are the parameters which are looked into for the purpose of creating a separate constituency. In the case of the Hazira Plant, the parameters which were looked into were independent administrative functional reporting, separate statutory jurisdiction under the Factories Act, 1948 and distinct labour administration under the State of Gujarat. It is also stated that apart from that there was a meeting with all the Trade Unions before taking a decision to form a separate constituency for the Hazira Plant on 23.04.2026. A further perusal of the said document, it would show that the secret ballot elections shall be conducted in terms with the Draft Industrial Relations Code (Central) Rules, 2025 for determining the relative strength of the Unions in (i) Hazira Constituency and (ii) revised Mumbai Constituency excluding Hazira. 14. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court now takes note of the grievance of the Petitioner and what the Petitioner seeks is that the Nazira/Sivasagar should be a separate constituency from that of combined Nazira/Sivasagar and Jorhat constituency. This Page No.# 13/15 in the opinion of this Court is purely an administrative decision of the Respondent ONGC which has to be taken on the basis of various factors as regards the applicability of the laws, the number of Unions that can be recognized as well as the inconvenience which may be caused in recognizing and not keeping a limit of the number of Trade Unions that can be recognized for the purpose of carrying out negotiations. There may be further consideration as to whether administratively it is to be feasible to have more recognized Unions for the purpose of negotiation, more particularly in the case of the present nature wherein the Nazira/Sivasagarh Unit and the Jorhat Unit is within a radial distance of 60 kms. 15. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the decision of the Respondent ONGC to have one constituency for Nazira/Sivasagar and Jorhat or to have separate constituencies for Nazira/Sivasagar and Jorhat being absolutely within the domain of the administrative powers of the Respondent ONGC, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution sans any arbitrariness shown to actions of the Respondent ONGC. The Petitioner had failed to do so. 16. Be that as it may, it is however very pertinent to observe that the cause of action for which the present writ petition was Page No.# 14/15 filed no longer survives in view of the coming into effect of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 whereby the recognition of the Trade Unions have been statutorily envisaged in Section 14 Industrial Relations Code, 2020 and the manner in which the verification is required to be carried out have been specifically mentioned in Rule 9(3) of the Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026. CONCLUSION 17. Under such circumstances, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:- (i) It shall be within the domain of the Respondent ONGC to take a decision as to whether the Nazira/Sivasagar Unit and the Jorhat Unit should be clubbed as one constituency or two constituencies and this Court finds no justifiable reasons shown by the Petitioner to direct the Respondent ONGC to bifurcate the single constituency into two constituencies. (ii) The Petitioner is granted the liberty to submit fresh representation placing the necessary benefits which may ensure upon segregating the two Units as two separate constituencies, and upon such representation being Page No.# 15/15 submitted, the same be duly considered by the Respondent ONGC. (iii) The respondent ONGC, in view of the coming into effect of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 w.e.f. 23.11.2025 has to now take effective steps in terms with the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 read with Rule 9 of the Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026 which had already come into effect from 08.05.2026. (iv) The directions passed in Clause (ii) herein above, shall not come in the way of the Respondent ONGC to take steps in terms with the directions passed in Clause (iii) herein above. (v) Interim orders stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.09.11 11:11:00 +05'30'