AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Deshpande, J.
In Complaint ULP No. 785 of 1993, the respondent no. 1 claimed benefits of G.O.74 by absorbing him in the post of Lower Division Clerk/Meter Reader in the year 1976 and after completion of 10 years of service in the post of Upper Division Clerk. The Industrial Court has allowed the said complaint on 17th July, 2006. The Employer MSEDCL is before this Court in this writ petition.
The respondent was initially appointed in the year 1958 in the service of the then Nagpur Light and Electricity Board Company as a Lineman. He was absorbed as Artisan Grade ''C'' along with 66 Meter Readers in the services of the petitioners on 21.01.1972. On 19.03.1972, he was appointed as Fuseman/Meter Reader. By an order dated 08.03.1973, out of 66 employees, 60 employees including the complainant were designated as Fuseman/Meter Reader and rests of the six employees are appointed as Line Inspector. Thereafter, by an order dated 19.03.1976, out of 60 employees, 57 employees were designated as LDC/Meter Reader, whereas the complainant and the remaining two employees were designated as Lineman-cum-Meter Reader. The claim of the complainant in the complaint was that he was designated by an order dated 19.03.1976 by designating him as Lineman-cum-Meter Reader whereas the other 57 employees were designated as LDC/Meter Reader.
It is not in dispute that the complainant thereafter got the benefit of G.O. 74 i.e. enhancement in scale on two occasions. However, he alleged discrimination on the ground that other 57 employees were granted benefits of G.O. 74 as Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk. The complainant is retired from service in the year 1995 and after getting benefits of G.O. 74 in the Lineman cadre, he filed the present complaint in the year 1992.
The Industrial Court has allowed the complaint only on the ground that he was discriminated in the matter of absorption in service and further grant of benefits of G.O.74. The Industrial Court could not have entertained such complaint, more particularly when the discrimination alleged pertains to the year 1976 when the complainant was absorbed in the post of lineman and he accepted the benefits in that category granted to him on two subsequent occasions under G.O. 74. The complaint should have been dismissed on this sole ground. The order impugned passed by the Industrial Court cannot, therefore, be sustained. The same will have to be set aside on this short ground.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.07.2006, passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 785 of 1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. The said complaint is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.