U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SHYAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Shyam Das, who was dismissed from service on 31st December, 1968, had filed a regular suit in the Civil Court, against the present petitioner on the grounds, inter -alia, that the order of dismissal was violative of the principles of natural justice as he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. It was stated by him in the plaint that he was appointed on 1st May, 1960 as a temporary coolie in the erstwhile U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd., managed by M/s. Martin and Burn Company Ltd., Lucknow. He was confirmed on 1st November, 1960. On 17th September, 1965, the U.P. Electric Supply Company was taken over by the present petitioner, namely the U.P. State Electricity Board. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner which was followed by a domestic inquiry in which ultimately an order of dismissal was passed on 31st December, 1968. The suit of the (petitioner) was resisted by the U.P. State Electricity Board which filed a written statement in which it was, inter -alia, pleaded that Shyam Das (respondent No. 1) was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This written statement is dated 17th September, 1977.

(2.) ON the establishment of Public Services Tribunals the U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the suit of respondent No. 1 was transferred to the Public Services Tribunal for trial. It was contended before the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the plaintiff (Shyam Das) was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act This contention was negatived by the Tribunal which by its judgment and order dated 10th October, 1977 allowed the claim petition and set -aside the order of dismissal. It is against this judgment and order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunals finding that it had jurisdiction to try the claim petition is erroneous and is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The findings of the Tribunal are to the following effect: - -