MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SURESH RAMCHANDRA PARCHURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28th November 1994 of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 194 of 1989 directing them to extend the benefit of the General Order No. 74 to the first Respondent workman from 1st April 1980. The petitioners were further directed to pay consequential arrears of wages by implementing the order from 1st april 1980.

(2.) THE first Respondent workman had joined services with the Petitioners as a Lower Division Clerk on 10th april 1964 and in the year 1971 was appointed to the post of Stores Assistant. On 17th March 1975 pursuant to an inquiry held against the workman for certain acts of misconduct, the Petitioners imposed punishment on the workman by withholding his increments for five years with cumulative effect. The workman appealed against this order. The Chairman of the Petitioners allowed the appeal and reduced the punishment by considering the fact that no actual loss of property had been sustained by the Board. The punishment was reduced to withholding of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect from the date of the original order of punishment which was passed in 1975. Therefore, by the time the appeal was decided on 27th December 1978, the workman had already undergone the required punishment. Despite this, the Petitioners did not promote the workman who had been in service for ten years, in accordance with the General Order No. 74 dated 30th April 1970. The object of this General Order was to extend special benefits to such of the Board's employees who had remained on given post for ten years without the advantage of promotion to a higher post or higher grade, for want of clear vacancies or for want of a channel of promotion. Such promotion was to be extended to (i)such persons who were otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance; (ii) who had passed the necessary examination/test including speed test, etc. required to be passed by the Board and (iii) who had continued in the same category of post or posts due to reasons other than disciplinary action against him. Where disciplinary action was taken against a workman, his case was to be considered after completion of two years from the punishment period being completed.

(3.) IT appears that the benefits available under the general Order No. 74 was modified in 1983 and it was decided that those who have remained on the same post for six years would be extended the benefit of General order No. 74. Therefore, the other stipulations being the same, the period for extending the benefit as reduced to six years. The first Respondent workman having completed six years as a Stores Assistant, called upon the Petitioners to extend the benefit of General order No. 74. We was informed in 1986 that a Competent selection Committee had decided not to extend the benefit of the General Order with effect from 1st April 1980 but from 1st April 1983 after taking a yearly review of his performance. The workman then filed a complaint in 1989 under Item 9 of Schedule Iv' of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 claiming benefits of the General Order No. 74 read with the amendment made in 1983. In his Complaint, the workman had contended that he had completed six years in the category of stores Assistant on 1st April 1980. He had also contended that there was no prescribed examination for the post of Stores Superintendent which was the promotional post and that no adverse remarks had been intimated to him in respect of his confidential reports for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The Written statement of the Petitioners is vague and there is no denial of the contentions of the workman regarding the adverse remarks. The Petitioners have pleaded that it was only when the Competent Selection Committee decided that the first Respondent workman was eligible for consideration for promotion in accordance with General order No. 74 that they accepted the decision and promoted him from 1983. in fact, they have admitted the contents of paragraph 9 of the Complaint where the workman had stated that there was no examination or test for the selection to the post of Stores Superintendent.