KAPIL DEV SHARMA Vs. CHAIRMAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT civil writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that matter of petitioner was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer Labour Court Shimla on failure of conciliation proceedings between the parties. Petitioner pleaded that he was appointed as Storekeeper in the year 1980 i.e. on dated 4.8.1980. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner was transferred to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 2.2.1984. The petitioner pleaded that petitioner is entitled for calculation of his service as Storekeeper for seniority purpose and further pleaded that petitioner is also entitled for revised salary to the post of Storekeeper. It is further pleaded that Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla on dated 25.7.1992 passed the award in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. It is further pleaded that Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla ordered to pay scale of Rs. 160 -400 (Pre revised) w.e.f. 4.8.1980 i.e. date of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Storekeeper with all consequential benefits. Learned Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla held that petitioner will be entitled for arrears which would be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of publication of award in the official gazette i.e. Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra. It is further pleaded that feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Kishore Bhawan The Mall Shimla through its Managing Director filed CWP No. 144 of 1993 titled H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Shimla vs. Kapil Dev. It is pleaded that CWP No. 144 of 1993 was disposed of by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and CWP No. 144 of 1993 filed by H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Shimla was allowed and impugned award passed by learned Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla was set aside. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner Kapil Dev filed SLP to Appeal (Civil) No. 8104 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev Sharma vs. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. before Hon'ble Apex Court of India and same was withdrawn on dated 08.04.1996 with liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. again for review. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner Shri Kapil Devi filed Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation and others. It is further pleaded that in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed the Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla to adjudicate the claim of petitioner regarding his placement in seniority list of Clerks maintained by H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. Shimla. It is further pleaded that Hon'ble High Court further ordered in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 that Shri Kapil Dev would implead the other persons before the Labour Court who are placed above the petitioner in seniority list. It is also pleaded that Hon'ble High Court in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 held that Kapil Dev would not be entitled to any other consequential monetary and other benefits. It is further pleaded that thereafter in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. passed in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Devi vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. and others Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla held that Kapil Devi is not entitled for any relief of seniority and compensation.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the award dated 16.03.2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer H.P. Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court Shimla petitioner filed the present petition pleaded therein that petitioner is legally entitled for seniority in the cadre of Clerks and he is also entitled for consequential monetary as well as promotional benefits. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought.

(3.) PER contra separate reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24 and 25 pleaded therein that petitioner has no cause of action to file petition. It is pleaded that other respondents are appointed in the cadre of Clerk much prior to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. It is also pleaded that petitioner has been rightly assigned the seniority in the seniority list on the basis of his appointment on the post of clerk in the office of respondent corporation. It is pleaded that seniority to the petitioner cannot be granted over and above the replying respondents. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought.