AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The challenge in the present petition is to an award dated 27th September 2003, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela (‘Tribunal’) in Industrial Dispute Case No.9 of 2002. The dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was as under:
“Whether the action of the management in reducing the post of helpers as against the terms as stipulated in the Orissa Electricity Reform (Transfer of Assets Liabilities- Proceedings and Personnel of GRIDCO to Distributions companies) Rules, 98 as against spectacular increase of consumer is legal and/or justified? If not, what should be the principle”?
Apart from one issue regarding maintainability, the main issue framed by the Tribunal for adjudication was on the same lines as the above term of reference. The reference was in fact answered in the affirmative by the Tribunal, i.e., in favour of the Management and against the Workman.
The Tribunal, however, in the passing, towards the end of the Award issued a direction to the Management to fill up 50% of the vacant posts of helpers “through proper advertisement or test or interview and selection”. It is this portion of the impugned Award that has triggered the present petition in which while issuing notice on 4th February 2004, this Court granted a stay to a limited extent that “any recruitment made by the Management either directly or indirectly to the posts of helpers/ semi-skilled/ un-skilled shall be subject to the result of the writ application”.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decision in M/s. Parry and Company Ltd. v. P.C. Pal AIR 1970 SC 1334 to urge that the above direction issued by the Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction as it was outside the scope of the reference.
As the Court views it, the direction issued by the Tribunal is innocuous. All that it states is that, if there are vacancies in the posts of helpers, the Management should fill up at least 50% thereof through a regular advertisement and a regular procedure.
Despite repeatedly asking to learned counsel to explain in what manner the Petitioner is actually prejudiced by the direction, learned counsel for the Petitioner was unable to do so.
Consequently, the Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned Award. The petition is dismissed.
………………………