RAM KRISHAN & ORS Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The nine writ petitioners, by this writ petition impugn the award dated 10th August, 1998 of the Labour Court holding the termination of services of the petitioners by the respondent no.1 DTC to be legal and valid and finding the petitioners to be not entitled to any relief. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted was issued. The respondent no.1 DTC has filed a counter affidavit to the petition. Rule was issued on 5th July, 2000. The parties were sent to the Lok Adalat of this Court but no settlement could be arrived at. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25th August, 2009. C.M. No.12731/2009 was filed for restoration. On 7th May, 2010 it was clarified that the said application shall be considered when the counsels are ready to address on the merits of the case. The counsels for the parties have been heard. Accordingly, C.M. No.12731/2009 for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 25th August, 2009 is allowed and the writ petition restored to its original position.

(2.) The nine petitioners along with nine other persons filed a joint claim statement before the Labour Court. It was their case that they were employed as Linemen with the respondent no.1 DTC on different dates between the years 1980-82; that on 21st July, 1984 the respondent no.1 DTC offered to them the post of Junior Clerk; that as per the offer letter, the petitioners were required to clear a qualifying typing test within two years therefrom. The petitioners accepted the offer on the terms contained in the offer letter. The petitioners however failed to clear the typing test and were terminated from employment. It is the contention of the petitioners that the clause in the letter aforesaid requiring them to clear a typing test was superfluous inasmuch as the work of a Junior Clerk for which they were employed, did not require any typewriting work inasmuch as for typing, there are other posts of Stenographers & typist clerks. The petitioners also contend that the action of the respondent no.1 DTC is discriminatory inasmuch as a large number of other Junior Clerks, who also had not cleared the qualifying typing test, had been regularized. It was yet further the case of the petitioners that in a number of other cases, exemption from qualifying the typing test had been granted by the respondent no.1 DTC. They further pleaded that the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act, had not been complied with for the termination of their services.

(3.) The respondent no.1 DTC contested the aforesaid claim pleading that the initial appointment of the petitioners as Linemen was on ad-hoc basis and there is no regular post of Linemen; that the petitioners were absorbed in the cadre of Junior Clerk subject to the condition of their qualifying a typewriting test within two years; that the petitioners had accepted the said condition of appointment and now cannot challenge the same. The respondent no.1 DTC further contended that exemption from typing test under the Service Rules could be granted only to the physically handicapped candidates, who produced certificate of their handicap issued by the concerned authorities.