PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts which give rise to the present petition are as under:

(2.) The petitioner states that respondent No.3 passed an award in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 directing the petitioner to promote the said respondents respectively to the posts of Welder/High Pressure Welder and Skilled worker on the basis of their separate demand notices purporting to raise industrial dispute; that the impugned award is patently without jurisdiction as the reference itself was wholly incompetent because the demand raised by respondents No.l and 2 was not espoused by substantial number of workers or the union so as to be covered within the purview of 'Industrial Dispute' as defined by section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further contended that the applicability of Industrial Disputes Act to an individual dispute as distinguished from a dispute involving a group of workman is excluded, and that unless supported by about 25% of the workman working in the establishment, it is taken to be not an Industrial Dispute. It is the further contention of the petitioner that respondent No.l was appointed as a work-charged employee vide appointment letter annexure P/2. The work-charged employee continues to work as such till the completion of the job. It is further contended that to improve the working conditions of these employees the policy of the petitioner is to regularise such employees who are deployed on the job which may be of permanent nature and the regularisation is being done in accordance with the Selection Committee after following due process of selection. It is further contended that the turn of the respondents No.l and 2 for such regularisation has not come on the basis of their seniority position; that respondent No.l has appeared before the Selection Committee for regular appointment but has not been given such an appointment so far. It is also contended that the service conditions of the Work Charged employees are governed by statutory standing orders framed and certified under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and no promotional avenue for the work-charged employees has been contemplated by the statutory standing orders it is further contended that it is only after the regularisation that they can be considered for promotions envisaged by the relevant rules.

(3.) It is further contended that respondent No.2 was appointed as daily wage worker and was latter (later) on made work-charged employee vide appointment letter dated 9.10.1991 which is at annexure P-3.