U.P. State Electricity Board and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

Brahma Singh Verma, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Haldwani, u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 Kedar Dutt Sati is an ex-licensee employee and he was appointed in 1952 by Nagar Palika Haldwani in its electricity department, which was taken over by the petitioners w.e.f. 1st January, 1976. On the appointed date, the services, of the workers of the electricity department including that of Sri Kedar Dutt Sati were transferred to the Board''s services on their original terms and conditions. At that time, Sri Kedar Dutt Sati was working as a Bill and Demand Clerk in Nagar Palika. The petitioners gave the workman a fresh appointment letter on the post of Routine Grade Clerk and it was clearly indicated in the appointment letter that all other allowances and Board''s terms and conditions will be applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 only and the terms and conditions of the Board will be applicable subject to the condition that the workman opts for the same. Photostat copy of the option, which was given by the respondent No. 2-workman has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, wherein it is specifically stated by the workman Kedar Dutt Sati in the following terms:-

I Kedar Dutt Sati S/O Sri Bisheswar Prashad Sati presently holding the post of Bill & Demand Clerk R.G.C. under U.P. State Elect. Board (Town) Sub-Divn. Haldwani against my appointment/contract with the President Municipal Board, Elect. Supply Undertaking Haldwani (name of Ex-licensee) do hereby opt for the U.P. State Electricity Board''s standard designation, pay scale, D.A. etc. and other terms and conditions of employment in place of my existing terms and pay etc. I will lay no claim whatsoever for my existing terms/standing orders, if any. The above offer of fitment is acceptable to me.

In pursuance of the recommendation made by the Wage Board the pay-scales of all the workers including that of ex-licensee workers were revised w.e.f. 1.4.1969. By Board''s Order dated 4th August, 1980, it was stated that the ex-licensee workers will also get the benefit of the revision of pay-scales, but the benefit will be granted w.e.f. the date of take over. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

None has appeared on behalf of either respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 despite service, when the case was taken up for hearing.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed before this Court including the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.

By a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Labour Court did not consider this aspect of the matter that the appointment letter was issued to the workman-respondent No. 2 on the option given by him and in that option form the workman had undertaken to abide himself by the terms and conditions of employment of the U.P. State Electricity Board and to lay no claim whatsoever regarding existing terms and pay etc. as detailed above.

Besides, in the appointment letter bearing Office Memorandum dated 13.12.1977 issued by the petitioners, it is specifically mentioned in clause 3 that the offer of appointment is valid only when Sri Kedar Dutt Sati opts for the Boards terms and conditions of service in place of the existing terms and conditions and pay etc. within one month of the issuance of the said Office Memorandum.

The learned Labour Court allowed the application of the workman on the ground that if the workman had continued in service with the Nagar Palika, he was also entitled for the amount of enhanced pay scale for the period 1.4.1969 to 31.12.1975. This finding of the learned Labour Court is perverse since the workman-respondent No. 2 had himself undertaken not to claim any benefit of earlier standing orders whatsoever, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is not tenable and the same is liable to be set aside. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed u/s 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is set aside. No order as to costs. However, the workman-respondent No. 2 would be at liberty to claim the amount in question from his earlier employer, i.e. Nagar Palika (respondent No. 3).