Shri Netar Singh vs H.P. State Electricity Board and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayer:

That the Respondents be directed to appoint the applicant as T. Mate w.e.f. the date of appointment of Respondent No. 3 alongwith other persons. The appointment of Respondent No. 3 be ordered to be quashed being illegally appointed ignoring the seniority of the applicant.

In reply, Respondents No. 1 & 2 have taken the following stand vide paras 1 & 2 of the preliminary submissions:

Preliminary submissions:

That the applicant herein by means of the present petition has inter-alia prayed for the following reliefs:

To be quoted

In context, it is stated that the applicant herein was initially engaged as daily rated Beldar on and w.e.f. 1.12.94 and worked as such upto 20.2.96 with certain interruptions/breaks. A copy of the statement showing the presence/absence in respect of the applicant herein is placed on record as Annexure RA-I. The perusal of the Annexure RA-I would go to show that the applicant herein had not completed 240 days continuous service with the replying Respondents in any calendar year. The engagement of the applicant herein was for specific work and on the completion of the said specific work the engagement of the applicant herein automatically came to an end. Since the applicant herein had not completed 160 days continuous service, therefore, there was No. need to serve the applicant with notice nor he was entitled to any compensation under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the applicant herein has not acquired the status of a temporary workman. His status remained as that of a casual worker. Thus the action of the replying Respondents is perfectly legal intra-vires, bona fie one and consequently the O.A. is not maintainable and deserves only dismissal.

That the applicant herein in accordance with his own showing was engaged as daily rated worker/Beldar with the replying Respondents. The applicant is thus a workman, within the ambit and meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the provisions of standing order framed and notified by the replying Respondents under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. Since the applicant is a workman, therefore, the grievance (s) if any, in respect of the applicant is only adjudicable by the appropriate authority under the Act of 1947. This being so the O.A. is not maintainable.

In view of the above reply, the petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the Petitioner to seek his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in accordance with law, if so advised. It is made clear that since the Petitioner has been pursuing the claim since April, 2003 earlier before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) and thereafter, before this Court, limitation would not come in his way in pursuing the remedy before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

The petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.