B NARAYANA Vs. ADDITIONAL TRIBUNAL CUM ADDL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the validity of the award dated April 26,1990 in I.D..No.48/83 passed by the first respondent and prays for a direction to the second respondent to promote him to the post of Line Inspector with effect from 18-12-1978 with further promotion to the post of Foreman Grade II with effect from 28-6-1992 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent relates to seniority and consequential promotion to the post of Line Inspector. The petitioner was appointed as Helper in the office of the Divisional Engineer (Electrical), A.P. State Electricity Board, for short "the Board", Nagarjunasagar. About two years earlier, the third respondent was appointed in the office of the Divisional Engineer, Lines Division of the Board at Hyderabad. The third respondent was promoted as Lineman in the Lines Division, City Circle on 17-9-1968. The petitioner was promoted as Lineman on March 20, 1969. It appears, the Board called for options from the employees to undergo training in "Hot Line Technique". The petitioner gave his option in 1970. He was sent for training and on March 9,1973 he was transferred and posted in the Hot Line Sub-division from that date. The third respondent was sent for training in 1976 at his option and he joined the Hot Line Sub-division of his parent's division viz., Lines Division on 18-7-1976. In the Lines Division, the seniority list of the Linemen was prepared on June 3, 1976 and objections were invited. The petitioner was shown at Sl.No.43 whereas the third respondent was shown at SI. No.31. That seniority list became final. While so, the Divisional Engineer (Operation) Lines Division, Hyderabad sought for clarification from the Superintending Engineer, Operation, City Circle on the question as to how the seniority of Hot Line Staff should be maintained. Thereafter, on 18-12-1978 the third respondent was promoted by the Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operations, Lines Division as a Line Inspector. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute over the question for fixation of seniority in the Lines Division and promotion of the third respondent as Line Inspector. While the conciliation proceedings were pending, the petitioner was also promoted as Line Inspector on 10-10-1980. In the mean while, the Electricity Board issued proceedings in BPMS No.640 dated 18-8-1980 prescribing certain norms of work load and staff pattern and also the procedure for filling up vacancies in Hot Line Sub-Division. A clarification was sought with reference to the said B.P.MS. from the Chief Engineer. In Memo. No.MPS/DM-1/A-3/1083/80-1, dated 1-12-1980, the Chief Engineer clairified the position to the Superintending Engineers to treat MRT workshop, Hot Lines and Power Houses in the operation circles as separate units and to maintain seniority among the staff including the posts of Foreman Grades I and II in those units separately. The seniority list of Hot Line Sub-Division was prepared on April 20,1982 wherein the petitioner was shown at S.No.2 and the third respondent was shown at S.No.l. This is also complained of by the petitioner.

(3.) The dispute relating to the seniority of the petitioner over the third respondent and the promotion of the third respondent was referred by the Government, under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, through G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 19-3-1987 to the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, A.P. Hyderabad - the first respondent herein. The question referred to reads as follows:-