MOHAN LAL Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by three petitioners. Counsel appearing for the petitioners state that petitioner no.3 has expired and therefore, the case has to be decided qua petitioner nos.1 and 2. The issue in the writ petition is the claim of seniority of petitioners as against the respondent nos. 3 to 14. Respondent nos.4 to 14 have however been deleted vide different orders of this Court, and I have therefore to decide the seniority of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 only against original respondent no.3-Sh. Arvinder Singh Bedi and who is now as per the amended memo of parties respondent no.2. Reference in this judgment to the respondent no.1 will as per context mean reference either to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) which formed part of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) or Delhi Vidhut Board (DVB) or the present respondent no.1 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

(2.) Before stating the facts of the case, and which show a long history, I must state that really all the facts will prove to be unnecessary because the judgment in the present case will simply be based on the principle of res judicata in view of the judgment of the Sub-Judge, First Class dated 1.9.1987 in Suit No. 584/1983 titled as Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In spite of the fact that the present case can be decided on the simple principle of res judicata, however, detailed narration of the facts will still be required and hence are stated hereinafter.

(3.) The employer of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent no.2 was the original respondent no.1/M/s Delhi Electric Supply and Undertaking (DESU). Respondent no.2 was appointed in 1976, however, the appointment was subject to regularization after finalization of valid R & P Rules i.e Recruitment and Promotion Rules and this is so stated in Annexure P-3, being the document of employment of the respondent no.2. Employment of petitioner nos.1 and 2 as also respondent no.2 took place pursuant to panel created on 12.1.1977. Respondent no.2 was placed at serial no. 6 on the said list below the petitoiners. Appointments were to take place in order of merit as and when vacancies occurred and that being so provided in the panel notice dated 12.1.1977. Out of the panel dated 12.1.1977 only one person out of the 12 persons was appointed, and therefore, the other persons who were denied employment approached the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking their appointment and regularization.