C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.8858 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2009 2. C.W.P. No.8859 of 2007 Saroop Singh .....Petitioner Versus Secretary Labour & Emloyment, Govt. of Punjab and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Saroop Singh, petitioner-in-person. Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. C.W.P. No.8858 of 2007 1. The queer prayer in the writ petition is that there shall be a direction for enforcement of the order in Writ Petition No.8581 of 1994 dated 11.01.1995. It would have required no more than a mere disposition of dismissal in limine as barred by laches and inappropriate use of a separate writ remedy for enforcing of an order which had been issued in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner had actually attempted to take resort to contempt proceedings in C.O.C.P. No.15 of 1996 for alleged failure to implement the order in C.W.P. No.8581 of 1994. He failed in his attempt when this Hon'ble Court C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -2- dismissed the petition on 10.04.1996, which is a further proof that the petitioner is making a claim that cannot find acceptance by a judicial process. The petitioner has vexed himself with multiple litigations over the years ever since he got a favourable order from this Hon'ble Court directing that he be considered for promotion from his post as an Assistant Welder to a higher post from the date when his juniors were reported to have been promoted. As regular as the sea waves lashing the shore, are the onslughts of the petitioner with petitions galore in mindless abandon seeking for the same reliefs for the last two decades. If the cases must come to an end somewhere, it would seem appropriate that there is a fresh look at the entire gamut of grievance that the petitioner has in an endeavour to find if any permanent solution would be possible and to appraise if the petitioner's grievances has any glint of plausibility. This exercise should again assure to the workman that his grievances were fully addressed and that they were not consigned to back-burner in unthinking haste. 2. On 10.07.1985, the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Welder on work-charged basis. According to the petitioner, he had high qualifications of having passed training courses in high pressure pipe welding from EIL, IPCL Baroda. He had passed Indian Boiler Regulations Tests in Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Calcutta and had also passed Indian Boiler Regulations Test in Alloy Steel Pipe from National Test House Bombay. He had worked in reputed firms for over 9 years when he joined the Electricity Board in the year 1985 as Assistant Welder. The first dispute to him was when C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -3- he found himself rubbing shoulders with persons less qualified than he was and he required a better deal through a promotion and raised an industrial dispute in the year 1989 seeking for consideration for promotion from the date when his juniors who were less qualified had been promoted. The Industrial Tribunal held that a worker of good record and qualification such as the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion for Welder/High Pressure Welder, if there is any post available. This award of the Labour Court passed under a reference No.21 of 1991 was challenged by the Electricity Board in C.W.P. No.8581 of 1994 when this Hon'ble High Court speaking through a Division Bench, dismissed the writ petition filed by the management on 11.01.1995, however, making a modification of the award to the extent that instead of specifying the particular post to which he shall be promoted and observing that the petitioner was entitled to be regularized along with another workman by name Vijay Kumar, directed that promotion should be done from the date when the persons juniors to them on the work-charged establishment were promoted. 3. The order of this Hon'ble Court was not immediately enforced. Even before the disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner had applied for enforcement of the award by resort to an application under Section 33-C(2) for execution of the award. When his claim petition was still pending, the petitioner moved a fresh representation for granting to him the relief as per the modification made by the Hon'ble High Court and on 31.05.1995, the Director Industrial Relations, PSEB, Patiala had instructed the Chief Engineer (O&M), C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -4- Works Section that Sh. Vijay Kumar, who was the co-respondent in the writ petition was directed to be promoted as work-charged Fitter from the date daily-wager Fitters were promoted as work-charged Fitters and Saroop Singh was entitled to be promoted from the date the workers juniors to him on work-charged establishment were promoted. Again, it could be noticed that more than directing that he was entitled to be promoted, the exact designation to which he was to be considered had not been mentioned. A clarity obtained only from the communication by the Chief Engineer (O&M) when on 03.07.1995, in purported compliance of the order of this Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner had been offered the post of Welder in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800 with initial start of Rs.1,000/-. 4. It should be noted that the Punjab State Electricity Board Technical Services Class III Rules, 1996 sets out a gradation of the various categories of employment and the channels of promotions that were admissible under the relevant rules. The extant rules that were in force on 30.09.1988 and therefore, applicable to the petitioner as well, provided that Welder Grade-I was a promotion post from the Assistant Welder. In the order of hierarchy, the next promotion post was the Certified Welder and from Certified Welder to Foreman (HP Welding). The rules also provided the ratio applicable for promotees and direct recruits for the respective posts. The order granting him the post of the Welder in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800, therefore, seems in perfect accord with the relevant rules. If there was not a reference to the suffix Grade-I in the appointment order, the reference to the scale of pay left no doubt that he was being offered only the C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -5- promotion post. 5. For some curious reason, in spite of the offer of employment to the post as a Welder, the petitioner was under the belief that it was not a sufficient compliance of the order of the High Court. The application for enforcement of the award, that had been filed before the order of the Labour Court about which we have referred to above, came to be dismissed for default on 31.10.1996. It may be noticed that even without dismissal of the application for default, even in his presence, there could not have been a better relief for, at that time the award which he was seeking for enforcement had suffered a modification by the order of the Hon'ble High Court and the order was also given effect to by the Electricity Board through the order of the Chief Engineer referred to above. What the petitioner must have left as inconsequential, he proceeded with the application under Section 33-C(2) because there were some monetary claims in his application and complaining that the management had not paid him what was due to him, which was to the tune of about Rs.33,000/- and he moved an application for restoration of the proceedings. This application also came to be dismissed for default on 22.07.1997. 6. The application for revival, euphemistically so called for restoration of the application, came to be filed but in the meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to be terminated from service since he had had not accepted the offer to the promotion post, apprehensive as he was, that what was contained in the order of promotion was not a proper compliance of the order of the High Court. Driven to the wall, when he found that his refusal to accept the promotion post resulted in C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -6- a larger damage to his career than what he had expected, he applied for joining the post after securing an award through the Industrial Tribunal on 13.01.1998, which was actually a reference made in the year 1995 to a dispute which he had raised that the order of the High Court had not been given effect. He was not allowed to join initially but subsequently he gave a letter on 09.03.2000 stating that he was joining under "compelled circumstances". His supplication did not cut ice and he had also given another letter to the G.M. (O&M) on 14.04.2000 expressing his willingness to join. The Additional Superintending Engineer responded only to the letter addressed to the G.M. by pointing out that his offer for joining was not accepted since the Labour Court had in its award dated 13.01.1998 declared that the reference which had been made in reference No.189/95 was invalid and that further even the contempt petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed and therefore, there was no relief which was possible. Ultimately it is seen that the termination dated 09.01.1998 itself was set aside by the award of the Labour Court in Amritsar and the petitioner also joined the services. The actual details of the award themselves are not available but from subsequent communications, it is seen that the workman was inflicted with stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect which is still in operation. The petitioner has attempted several other remedies through applications and writ petitions through Labour Court and this High Court respectively. It may not be necessary to detail them at length except to note that his applications for grant of monetary benefits before the Labour Court have been repeatedly dismissed and the several writ C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -7- petitions trying to obtain directions to the Labour Court for hearing of his applications before the Labour Court have also been dismissed. 7. The substantial benefit which he seeks by means of the writ petition is to secure the enforcement of the order of the High Court in C.W.P. No.8581 of 1993, which has been given to the workman. The relevant rules containing the channels of promotion clearly reveal that the promotion post for the Assistant Welder was Welder Grade-I, which was the post that was offered to him. It seems like, the petitioner was goaded into thinking that he was entitled to a still higher post viz. Certified Welder, perhaps by the fact, he had been recommended for being considered to the post of Certified Welder from the pool of qualified persons available on the work-charged establishment by a communication of the Chief Engineer dated 27.01.1993 that was even before the High Court's order in C.W.P. No.8581 of 1994. He could not have been absorbed to such a post by promotion but at best, he could have gained entry by direct recruitment in the quota allowed for them. However, he does not appear to have applied for the post through the process of selection for direct recruitees. What was given to him was promotion in its normal course that enabled him to go only to the next higher post of Welder Grade-I. The Service Rules of 1996 allow for the appointment to the post of Certified Welder through direct recruitment as well to the extent of 33% but the fact is that he did not apply through the open market to the post of Certified Welder and coming through the normal channel, he could only aspire to the next higher post and not to the post of Certified Welder. C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -8- 8. His own comparisons to some persons, juniors to him who had been occupying higher posts have no meaning. The petitioner was comparing himself to promotion of skilled workers to Fitters (work charge) and their further promotions. They have different channels of promotions and hence the comparisons were inappropriate. The communication of the Director Industrial Relations to the Chief Engineer makes reference to the fact that Saroop Singh was entitled to be promoted when his juniors were promoted. If there have been a laxity anywhere of the management to address the grievances of the workman, it was only with reference to the regularisation of a person by name Balbir, who had been regularized as an Assistant Welder in the year 1990, even before the petitioner was regularised to the post as Assistant Welder. Again this would have had no effect on his career prospects since the petitioner had been working already on the post of Assistant Welder and he was promoted to the post as Welder Grade-I as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. No details are, however, forthcoming as to whether Balbir himself has been promoted to a still higher post above the Welder in the post of Certified Welder or a still further promotion post as Foreman. It may not be possible to venture on probing to issues, which are not before this Court. Again the channels of promotion for Fitters are not shown to be the same as for Welders and it shall be impermissible for the petitioner to compare himself with the promotions earned by persons, who are working as Fitters and comparing himself as having been deprived of the promotions. 5. The petition seeking for enforcement of the award is, under C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -9- such circumstances, not feasible. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any reliefs in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. C.W.P. No.8589 of 2007 6. The writ petition seeks for omnibus direction for recalling of decisions passed on three different applications before the Labour Court. Application No.895 of 1994 dated 31.10.1994 that came to be disposed of on 31.10.1996, an application to restore the application, which was dismissed for default on 22.07.1997 and still later an application filed to revive the application, which was also dismissed. All the three orders came to be passed without consideration of his claim under Section 33-C(2) and the petitioner has detailed every incident, most of which are litigations pending in various Courts as reasons for his non-appearance on the various dates when the cases were filed. 7. It may be seen that all the three orders arise out of a single claim made by the workman that he was entitled to same monetary benefits which had been denied to him. Although, no exception can be taken for the orders passed by the Labour Court, it seems that the petitioner has been labouring hard all these years only to seek an adjudication on merits. The party has appeared in person before this Court and expressed his grievance that for all the 15 years that he has been litigating, he has not been able to gain the attention on any Court to address his case on merits. I am of the view that interest of justice would be appropriately met if an opportunity is given to prosecute his application filed under Section 33-C(2) in Application No.895 of C.W.P Nos.8858 and 8859 of 2007 (O&M) -10- 1994 and dispose of the same on merits. Consequently all the impugned orders, which have been dismissed for default are set aside and the application filed by the petitioner may be taken up for disposal according to law. The writ petition is ordered as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 13 , 2009 Pankaj*