M GOPAL Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to Per. BP (Ch) No. 256 (Administrative Branch) dated 12.12.2005, to quash the same insofar as para 2(iv) of the said B.P. And consequently direct the respondents to fix the seniority and promote workmen based on helper seniority in accordance with the 12(3) Settlement dated 15.10.2005. Common Order: (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.) These writ petitions have been filed seeking for quashing the proceedings of the Board passed in Per. BP (Ch) No. 256 (Administrative Branch) dated 12.12.2005 and to further direct the respondents to fix the seniority and promote workmen based on Helper seniority in accordance with the Settlement dated 15.10.2005 arrived at under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) THE petitioners in W.P. No. 17026 of 2006, who are members of the Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees [for short, 'COTEE'], petitioner in W.P. No. 7321 of 2007, joined the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [for short, 'Board'] as Regular Work Charge Establishment in the year 1987 - 1988. Later on, when they became Helpers, they were given the option of line of promotion, viz., Wireman line and Commercial Assistant line and the option will be final. THE petitioners exercised their option to go in the Commercial Assistant Line, which would be in the nature of office and allied work, with that line of promotion. It is stated that the avenue of promotion from a Helper is to the post of Commercial Assistant and then to Commercial Inspector is very limited because it is far less compared to the number of posts of Wireman and Line Inspector and there is only one of post of Commercial Assistant and Commercial Inspector for a section, whereas for Wireman, there are 8 and above posts. Further, the Helpers, who opted for Wireman line, will get promotion faster than the Commercial Assistant channel.

(3.) THE petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit stating that they are not the members of the TNEB Thozhilalar Aykkia Sangam which signed the 12(3) Settlement and the COTEE is not a signatory to the 12 (3) Settlement. As per the Settlement, the employees, who were promoted by applying the single channel promotion under B.P. 27 dated 22.6.1999, are alone entitled to one more opportunity and there is no provision in the settlement as to the second option to the existing employees. It is further stated that inspite of the interim order dated 12.7.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 16051 of 2006, the respondent Board has called for option from the employees by an order dated 01.12.2006, that if the BP is implemented, it would be contrary to the Settlement and Service Regulations.