ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION KASHIPUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N. S. Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhayaya, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the validity and legality of the award passed by the labour court holding that the period spent as a workcharge employee would be counted in the seniority and consequential benefits that may arise in pay.

(3.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the respondent nos.3 and 4 were working as workcharge employees in the Electricity Board and, subsequently, they were regularised. The workmen raised a dispute that the period, which the workers had spent as workcharge employees, should also be included in the length of service and that the length of services should not start from the date of their regularisation. The labour court, after considering the material evidence on record, submitted that the electricity board has not framed any rules or regulation with regard to non-inclusion of the period of workcharge in their length of service from the date of regularisation. The labour court, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the period spent by the workers as workcharge employees should be included in the length of service and for other benefits that may follow. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the said award, has filed the present writ petition.