MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LAMACHAND BALIRAM CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order of the industrial Court dated 5. 10. 1987 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 129 of 1984 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a statutory Electricity Board. The First Respondent is an employee of the said Board. The First Respondent joined the service of the Petitioner on 18. 5. 1979 as Chargeman grade II on work-charge establishment at Chandrapur. Despite breaks in his service from 18. 11. 1979 to 25. 11. 1979 and from 26. 5. 1980 to 1. 6. 1980, he continued in service. On 23rd august, 1980, the First Respondent was appointed as a temporary employee on the establishment of the Nasik Thermal Power Station. In 1982, he was selected by the Selection Board as a permanent employee and placed on the rolls of the Permanent Employees of the Board. On 12. 4. 1983, the seniority list of employees was published and in that list the First Respondent's name was shown at Serial No. 447. According to the First Respondent, he should have been at serial No. 222. On 6. 10. 1983 the First Respondent made a representation to the Board that his seniority had been wrongly fixed and that he was entitled to have his seniority refixed in accordance with the recommendations of the Special Selection Committee and the recommendations of the Bhingare Committee, both of which had been accepted by the Petitioner- Board. He contended that, if his seniority is refixed, he would be placed at Serial No. 222. This contention was refuted by the reply of the Petitioner-Board dated 14. 11. 1983 in which it was pointed out that the first Respondent's seniority has been properly fixed.

(3.) THE First Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 129 of 1984 before the Industrial Court at nasik and invoked items 5,6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. Initially, the grievance of the First respondent was that the breaks which had been given to him were mala fide and, despite the notional breaks given in his service, he had actually carried out work even during the so-called breaks on oral instructions of the superiors and that in fact his service was continuous from 18. 5. 1979. The first Respondent, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to be made a permanent employee and given consequential benefit of refixation of his seniority, at Serial No. 222 instead of 447, as on 12. 4. 1983. This contention resisted by the Petitioner-Board which maintained that the seniority of the First Respondent had been fixed by the competent Selection Committee in 1982 depending upon his performance, that in 1983 a seniority list of all employees in the First respondent's cadre was prepared in which the First Respondent had been rightly placed at Serial no. 447. The First Respondent contended that by virtue of Regulation No. 6 of the Maharashtra state Electricity Board Employees' Seniority Regulations, 1961, the seniority of directly recruited employees had to be maintained as per the order in the select list, notwithstanding the fact that the employee might have been already an employee of the Board in some other capacity. The First Respondent also pleaded Employees' Service Regulation No. 100 which provided that an employee borne on work-charged establishment, when appointed to a post as a regular employee, shall be treated as new entrant for all purposes. It was also pleaded that employees' service Regulation No. 9 (11) defines "employee" as meaning a person in the service of the Board, but does not include a person borne on work-charged establishment or on nominal muster roll or a daily wage earner.