The Executive Engineer, Shimla Electrical Division No. II, H.P.S.E.B., Shimla Vs. The Presiding Officer,
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7800 of 1997
Petitioner: The Executive Engineer, Shimla Electrical Division No. II, H.P.S.E.B., Shimla
Respondent: The Presiding Officer, H.P. Labour Court & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7800 of 1997
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 08, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Article 136 – Lineman in Electricity Department – Non-matriculate-Labour Court directing him to be treated as a regular lineman by 15.10.96 – Employee satisfied with award. Held that no interference is called for.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we do not think on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that any interference is called for in the present proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. Respondent no.2 who was admittedly sent for apprenticeship training as a Lineman in 1982, successfully completed the said training in 1985. Admittedly, he is not a Matriculate but he has read up to Class VIII standard. So far as his claim to be appointed as a T-Mate is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that as per the existing recruitment rules, on expiry of six years, i.e. by 1991, respondent no. 2 could have become an Assistant Lineman on available vacancy and within a further period of four years, he would have become a regular Lineman in 1995. The Labour Court, before whom the dispute was raised, has directed the appellant-Board to treat him as a regular Lineman only by 15.10.1996. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court upholding the said award in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 fairly stated that though the Labour Court has recommended and left it to the appellant-Board to give earlier promotion with all other incidental benefits, respondent no.2 is satisfied if he is treated as regular Lineman with effect from 15.10.1996, as directed by the Labour Court. We record this statement and close this proceeding. The appellant-Board will now work out all the monetary benefits available to respondent no.2, pursuant to the present judgment, within four months from today and the same will be made available to respondent no.2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Interim stay granted on 14.08.1997 will stand vacated. No costs.
1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we do not think on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that any interference is called for in the present proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. Respondent no.2 who was admittedly sent for apprenticeship training as a Lineman in 1982, successfully completed the said training in 1985. Admittedly, he is not a Matriculate but he has read up to Class VIII standard. So far as his claim to be appointed as a T-Mate is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that as per the existing recruitment rules, on expiry of six years, i.e. by 1991, respondent no. 2 could have become an Assistant Lineman on available vacancy and within a further period of four years, he would have become a regular Lineman in 1995. The Labour Court, before whom the dispute was raised, has directed the appellant-Board to treat him as a regular Lineman only by 15.10.1996. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court upholding the said award in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 fairly stated that though the Labour Court has recommended and left it to the appellant-Board to give earlier promotion with all other incidental benefits, respondent no.2 is satisfied if he is treated as regular Lineman with effect from 15.10.1996, as directed by the Labour Court. We record this statement and close this proceeding. The appellant-Board will now work out all the monetary benefits available to respondent no.2, pursuant to the present judgment, within four months from today and the same will be made available to respondent no.2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Interim stay granted on 14.08.1997 will stand vacated. No costs.
