IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5702 of 2003 Date of decision: 29th September, 2010 Haryana State Electricity Board and others … Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Panipat and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Board’) seeking quashing of award (Annexure P-1) dated 30th December, 2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. Sultan Singh, Lala Ram, Sant Singh, Rajinder Singh, Shish Ram and Dharam Chand-respondents No.2 to 7 respectively, issued a demand notice dated 19th February, 1996, but the same was referred by the Government of Haryana to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. A grievance was made by the workmen-respondents that the Board had promoted their juniors without adhering to the principle of seniority. They gave instances of Jagga Singh, Narender Singh and Rulda Ram and stated that they, being juniors had been promoted denying the same benefit to the workmen-respondents. The petitioner- Civil Writ Petition No.5702 of 2003 Board filed a written statement before the Labour Court and the Court noticed the averments made by the Board as under: “2. … … … It was further pleaded that consequence relief to the employees has been given in compliance of the order of the Ld.Addl. District Judge, Panipat in case of Sh.Jagga Singh and Sh.Rulda Ram. So far the case of Sh.Narender Singh & others is concerned they have also given the relief subject to pending decision of appeal made by the Board/ Nigam vide CWP No.9389/90 which is still pending in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as HSEB Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Ambala and as such the case of the claimants can not be compared with the alleged officials. It was also mentioned that the claimants were also given the offer of appointments for the regular post of helper grade-I which was accepted by the claimants and after accepting the post offered to them the claimants have no right to claim parity with other officials.” The Labour Court after going through the pleadings and examining the evidence led, concluded as under: “8. … … … In the present case also no reason has been given why the workmen were not given the seniority when they and their juniors were appointed. Therefore, in my opinion benefit of promotion can not be denied to the workmen when the juniors were promoted. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that workmen are also entitled for promotion along with all consequential benefits from the date their juniors were promoted as mentioned in Annexure 1 to 6. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the workmen and against the management.” In the present writ petition, a specific ground has been pleaded, which reads as under: 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5702 of 2003 “6. (vii) That the Ld. Presiding Officer has mainly relied upon the case of Narender Kumar and others, who were allegedly juniors to the respondents No.2 to 7. The petitioners respectfully submit that they were granted benefit subject to the decision of the Civil Writ Petition No.9389/1990, which is pending in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for adjudication.” This Court, on the last date of hearing, i.e. September 06, 2010, had called for the file of Civil Writ Petition No.9389 of 1990, a perusal whereof reveals that the Board had preferred that writ petition in this Court and the same was dismissed in default on 4th November, 2009 with a cost assessed at Rs.3,000/-. The matter of fact is that Narender Singh, Ajit Singh and Madan Lal, who were junior to the workmen- respondents, were promoted to comply with the award dated 18th September, 1989 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ambala. That award has attained finality. Furthermore, in the impugned award, the Labour Court had taken note of various other persons, who being junior to the workmen-respondents, were granted promotion ignoring the workmen-respondents. Thus, no infirmity can be found with the award (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Panipat. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 29, 2010 rps 3