TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. R SUNDAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O. S. No. 809 of 1979, on the file of district Munsif's Court at Vellore is the appellant.

(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration declaring that the memo dated 27. 9. 1978 and subsequent memos are null and void. It is his case that he has been appointed as Nominal Muster Roll worker in the year 1957, and promoted as Construction Foreman Grade VI during 1961, and later promoted as Wireman on 12. 3. 1963, and again promoted as Lineman grade I on 5. 6. 1970. It is his further case that as per Board decision of the appellant dated 6. 8. 1969, workmen who have put in six years of service would be absorbed in regular cadre and fixed the date as 1. 4. 1969. THEre was delay in implementation of the said proceedings and in consequence thereof, the plaintiff was not absorbed in the corresponding category, but his juniors were absorbed. THE defendant published the list of seniority under a memo dated 26. 8. 1978, ranking the plaintiff as No. 68, and his date of regular appointment was stated as 5. 6. 1970 in Lineman Grade I. It is his case that the defendant ought to have integrated the plaintiff as Lineman Grade I, and fixed his date of regular appointment as 1. 4. 1969. But that was not done by the Board. It is also said that further proceedings were also passed by the appellant by memo dated 11. 9. 1978, whereby the anomaly of a junior getting more pay than the senior was rectified, and even after the rectification, the plaintiff was not given promotion, which he was legally entitled to. Further proceedings were also passed by the appellant on 27. 9. 1978, whereby 37 persons were recommended for promotion, in which the name of the plaintiff was not found. THE defendant has failed to promote the plaintiff even in the second promotion list, and therefore, he wants a declaration that the memo issued by the defendant is illegal and void.

(3.) IN a recent decision of our High Court reported in, tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore v. A. Krishnan , 1997 (1) CTC 116, Justice d. Raju, has in paragraph 20 of the Judgment, held thus:- '20. That apart, yet another serious infirmity, which goes to the root of the matter and for which also, the suit is liable to be dismissed has been overlooked by the courts below. The appellant Board has taken an objection on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. IN cases where seniority lists were challenged and the relief sought for involves, if granted to the claimant, prejudice to others whose interests and rights will be vitally affected the proceedings instituted without such parties before the court, would be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The courts below, in my view, over-simplified the matter by observing that the plaintiff is seeking for a declaration of his rights. As could be seen from the plaintiff's averments, the specific case is that by virtue of the defective manner of implementation of the agreement entered into under Section 18 (1) of the INdustrial Disputes Act, juniors of the plaintiff have stolen a march over the plaintiff and derived undue benefits to the detriment of the plaintiff and that being the position, if the relief has to be granted and in this case actually has been granted by the court below, necessarily the other parties, who were said to be nearly 42 in number as per the claim of the defendant/appellant projected even before the trial Court, will be seriously and adversely affected. Such parties are therefore necessary and proper parties to the proceedings before the court. This is not a case where any validity of rule or a statutory provision is alone being challenged, in which case only an exception had been made that individual workers or employees or officers who may be affected need not necessarily be made parties, but in a case of the nature where no such claim was involved and the very claim is competing claim of seniority and rights, based on such claim of seniority, interse between various workers, the other workers, who, according to the plaintiff, have undeservedly stolen a march over the plaintiff in the matter of seniority and further promotions, ought to have been necessarily made parties to the suit and their absence renders the suit itself bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On this ground also, the suit ought to have been dismissed. ' I am in full agreement with the view taken by the learned judge, and I hold that the present suit also is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit ought to have been dismissed for that reason alone.