S KUPENDRAN Vs. TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.4618 of 2001: The Petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from ousting the Petitioner from service of the Respondents as helper. W.P.No.23575 of 2006: The Petitioners seeks appropriate order directing the Third Respondent to give annual increment to the Petitioner from 2001 onwards and to include the Petitioner in the seniority list in the appropriate place in Memo No.130/ADM.II/A.1/F.Hr.Seniority/2004, dated 22-05-2004 for promotion to the post of Wiremen.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: 2.1) THE Tamilnadu Electricity Board in (Per) B.P. (FB) No.17 (SB) dated 28-04-1999 had issued instructions that the Contract Labourers identified as on 05-01-1998 and continuously engaged in four THErmal Stations viz., Ennore THErmal Power Station, Tuticorin THErmal Power Station, Mettur THErmal Power Station and North Chennai THErmal Power Station shall be absorbed based on seniority in the respective Stations to the extent of regular sanctioned and supernumerary posts of Helper mentioned in the B.P. For each Station. THE excess Contract Labourers, who are to be regularized shall be absorbed as Helpers in the vacancies available in the nearby Distribution Circles. In the same B.P., the First Respondent-Board has also given certain guidelines to be followed for absorption of the Contract Labourers. 2.2) THE Petitioner was one among the Contract Labourers, who was identified as a Bonafide Contract Labourer engaged in North Chennai THErmal Power Station. Based on the instructions of Member (G)/TNEB in his memo dated 27-10-1999, the Petitioner was temporarily appointed as Helper in the Scale of Pay of Rs.3050-75-3590-60-4590 in Regular Work Establishment Cadre of the Board under Regulation 106 of the TNEB Service Regulations. In pursuance of the above appointment order, the Petitioner joined duty as helper on 19-11-1999 F.N. At Operation and Efficiency/Division/NCTPS. 2.3) It is stated that the Petitioner has not completed 480 days of service as on 30-4-1999 and hence, the Executive Engineer/O&E has stopped the Petitioner from work on 26-2-2000, which is challenged in W.P.No.4618 of 2001. 2.4) As per the guidelines formulated by the Board the norms for absorption is that the individual has to complete 460 days of service in a continuous period of 24 calendar months as on 30-4-1999 and this cannot be deviated. As per the Boards condition only the individual, who has completed 480 days of service as on 30-4-1999 alone can be taken into consideration for absorption.

(3.) IT is stated that pursuant to the interim injunction passed by this Court in W.M.P.No.6546 of 2001 the Petitioner has been reinstated into service. While directing the Petitioner to approach the Labour Court, it is observed that the interim order of reinstatement of the Petitioner in service shall continue till the matter is decided by the concerned Labour Court.