MANAGEMENT OF SALAL POWER STATION Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The demand Notice No. SWU/24-27 dtd. 15/2/1997 was issued by the respondent No.1 espousing the cause of respondent No.4, w/o Sher Singh, who was ex-employee of the petitioners, for converting her to work charge cadre as per policy with effect from 1/10/1988 in the pay scale of 260-400 (pre-revised) with full back wages and other monetary benefits. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu after recording the failure of conciliation between the petitioners and the respondent No.1, reported the matter to respondent No.3 vide its report dtd. 29/1/1998. The respondent No.3 vide its order dtd. 10/9/1998 made a reference under sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No.2 after considering the evidence led by the contesting parties answered the reference by virtue of an award dtd. 6/5/2002, thereby holding respondent No. 4 entitled to the scale wages w.e.f. 1/10/1988.

(2.) The petitioners have pleaded that the respondent No. 4 was engaged by the Society known as the Salal Project Employees Co-operative Society Limited and was never engaged on compassionate basis by the petitioners. The petitioners through the medium of this writ petition have not only impugned the award dtd. 6/5/2002 but also the notification No. L-42011/13/98/IR(DU) dtd. 10/9/1998, whereby reference was made by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 as well as the notification dtd. 21/5/2002 published pursuant to the award of respondent No.2 on the following grounds:

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, in which it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as the evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the writ petition. It is also stated that a notification issued by the Central Government referring the dispute to the respondent No.2 has been challenged after more than four years, as such, this writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is further stated that respondent No. 4 was appointed by virtue of the appointment order dtd. 1/4/1987 issued by the office of Senior Manager (P&A) Salal Hydroelectric Project Jyotipuram. The said order has not been issued by the Co-operative Society. Merely, placing the services of respondent No. 4 in the office of Salal Project Co-operative Store does not mean that she has been appointed by the authority other than the petitioners. In nutshell, the stand of respondent No. 4 is that she was the employee of the petitioners and not of Co-operative Society as she never applied for appointment in the Co-operative Society and in fact, she sought/applied appointment on compassionate grounds with the petitioners only. The payment of wages of respondent No. 4 from the funds of co-operative store is immaterial and the nature and character of the employment can be equated with an employee placed on deputation. It is also the stand of respondent No. 4 that the petitioners" employees are working in this Salal Project Employees Consumer Store and it clearly shows that the petitioners have placed its employees in the said store.