Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
M/s National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. and others - Petitioners
Versus
Shri R.C. Rana and others - Respondents
CWP No.: 710 of 2011
Decided On : 23-05-2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Samir Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the appropriate government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute - National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - The court discussed the appropriate government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the implications of the notifications issued by the Central Government. The court held that the State Government of Himachal Pradesh was not the appropriate government and quashed the award passed by the Labour Court.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen were appointed by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. and sought benefits and promotions. The Labour Court granted reliefs in favor of the claimants, which was challenged by the employer Corporation in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government of Himachal Pradesh was not the appropriate government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. under the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, quashed the award passed by the Labour Court.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the appropriate government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Industrial Disputes Act and the notifications issued by the Central Government, which clarified the appropriate government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the award passed by the Labour Court was quashed and set aside.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged award dated 20.08.2010, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala in Ref. No. 188/2002, titled as Sh. R.C. Rana and others Vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. And others
2. Respondents/workmen before this Court raised an industrial dispute, which culminated into the State Government of Himachal Pradesh seeking a determination of the following reference from the learned Labour Court:
“ki kya sarav Shri R.C. Rana, Ramesh Chand Sharma, Gurdev Chand, Gagan Singh, Om Parkash Sharma, Gandhi Ram, Jai Singh, R.K. Singh Thakur, Ramesh Kumar, Subhash Chand Sahotra, Bishan Charan, Ravinder Kumar, P.N. P. Nayar, Kishan Chand, Antoni Butt, Pyare Lal thatha Anil Kumar ko Chariman aum Prabandh Nideshak, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Sector 33, Karyala Complex, Faridabad, Haryana-121003 dwara Maha Prabandhak/Incharge, Manager Chamera Jal Vidyut Pariyojna Stage1 Kheri, Zila Chamba ke madhyum se maangkarta Sahayak Grade-III ke pad par anya 40 karamcharayon jinehey dinank 15/5/1985 se Sahayek Grade-II ke pad par padonit/niyukt kiya gaya hai se warishit hone ke aadhar par dinanak 1/1/1985 se Sahayak Grade-II ke pad par padonit/niyukt nahi karne ki karyawahi uchit wa nayoyochit hai? Yadi nahi, to uproket mmmangkarta Kaamgar uproket Niyojak paksh se kis poorve waiten, sewa labhon, warishttha, samayasamaya par deya warsh, 1985 ke pashchat padanotiyan aur rahat ke patar hai?”
3. As per the claim petition filed by the respondents/workmen (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen”), they were appointed by the Management of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. at Baira Siul Project Surangan and Chukhla Transmission System and Chamera Hydroelectric Project, respectively against the posts of Assistant GradeIII in the pay scale of Rs.260-430/- through a process of internal induction from work charge cadre to regular cadre. As per them, before their induction into regular cadre, they were performing the same duties in the respective Projects as were being performed by the regular cadre Assistant Grade-III. Though they were allowed the benefits of earned leave, HPL, gratuity and EPF, however, the services rendered by them as work charge were not counted towards the minimum qualifying period for promotion against the post of Assistant Grade-III and Assistant Grade-II. Further, as per the workmen, before their transfer to Chamera Hydroelectric Project as Assistant Grade-III, the Project proponent had appointed 40 Assistant GradeIII by way internal induction from amongst the Work Assistants of Baira Siul Project. All these 40 persons were junior to the workmen/claimants. Said 40 workmen were appointed as Assistant Grade-II w.e.f. the date of their joining vide order dated 26.05.1995 and were promoted against the post of Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 01.07.1990. As per the claimants, they were rendered junior to the said 40 persons.
4. In this background, in the claim petition, following prayers were made:
“(a) To direct the respondents to promote/place the petitioners in the pay scale 330560 (pre revised) as Asstts. Grd.-II w.e.f. 01.01.1985 or prior to the date of joining of these 40 Assistants Grd.-II, whose names and their date of joining are mentioned in Annexure P6.
OR
To direct the respondents to count the services of the petitioners rendered in same or higher pay scale in work-charged cadre towards the minimum qualifying period for promotion from the post of Asstt. Grd.-III to Asst. Grd.-II.
(b) To promote the petitioners in the pay scale of 14502440 w.e.f. 1.1.90 or 1.7.90 and place the applicants in senior position in the Seniority list than these 40 Assistants.
(c) To direct the respondents for production of records pertaining to case of petitioners, being custodian of records as employer.
(d) Any other reli
