- (1.) This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 13.02.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur.
(2.) The essential facts are, the petitioner, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a successor to Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration, which was a Unit of U.P. State Electricity Board. The U.P. State Electricity Board ceased to exist after the U.P. State Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme was notified on 15.01.2000.
(3.) The State Electricity Board was constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Board exercising its power under Section 79-C had framed the Regulations which govern the employees of the Board. The Regulation thus framed are applicable to the petitioner's employees also. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are working as draftsmen in its establishment. The present dispute arose when the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 moved an application purported to be under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'Act'). In the said application they averred that they are working as draftsmen in Drawing office of the petitioner. Initially they were appointed as Tracer and and they earned their promotion on the post of Draftsman. They claimed that they used their private scooter-motorcycle for the purposes of their employer. They are entitled for the scooter-motorcycle allowance. It was stated in their application that two draftsmen were sanctioned the scooter-motorcycle allowance in compliance of award of the Labour Court in their case. Thus the respondents made a claim for payment of Rs. 1,89,600/- from 05.08.1988 to 30.09.2001, the date of filing of the said application. The petitioner filed its written statement and denied the fact that the respondent workmen were using their scooters-motorcycles in connection of the petitioner' work. It was stated that the petitioner has its own vehicles and whenever any employee makes inspection they are provided the official vehicle. It was also stated that the respondents were never allowed by the petitioner to use their private vehicles. The petitioner in the written statement also raised the issue about the maintainability of the application under Section 33C (2) of the Act. A copy of the written statement of the petitioner is annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. On 17.04.2002 the petitioner moved an application also to produce the order of the award in Case No. 8 of 1987, on which the respondent workmen were placing reliance.;