(1.) PETITIONER was appointed on daily wage basis with respondent No.2 -corporation as Plant Attendant in the year 1991. He was given artificial/fictional breaks in the year 1997. He raised demand on 30.1.1997. The matter was settled amicably between the management and the petitioner on 17.3.1998 whereby it was agreed upon to grant the petitioner seniority from the date of appointment vide Annexure P -1. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was not conferred work charge status as per Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others,1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 immediately after the completion of 10 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year in the year 2001. Precise case of respondent No.2 is that the scheme framed by the State Government was not applicable to the corporation. However, the fact of the matter is that the services of the petitioner were transferred to respondent No.3 on 14.7.2007 and he has been regularized on 1.10.2007.
(2.) MS . Archana Dutt has strenuously argued that since her client had completed 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year, he was to be conferred work charge status immediately after the completion of 10 years service as per Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others,1994 Supp (2) SCC 316.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.