- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 24-3-1982 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court U. P. , Meerut in adjudication case No. 297 of 1978. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether termination of services of respondent No. 2 - Abdul Salam with effect from 19-6-1975 by the then employer Nagar Palika, Meerut was valid or not. Before 1976 Meerut Municipal Board was also supplying electricity in the City and the said Unit was known as Meerut Electricity Supply Undertaking. By virtue of U. P. Ordinance No. 37 of 1975 (later on converted into U. P. Act No. 14 of 1976) the licenses of all the Electricity Supply Undertakings in Uttar Pradesh were revoked with effect from 1-1-1976 and the undertakings were taken over by U. P. Electricity Board. By virtue of Section 6-A added by the said Ordinance and Act to Indian Electricity Act 1910 all such undertakings stood transferred to the Electricity Board free from any debt, mortgage and similar obligation of the licensee attaching to the undertaking and the said debts mortgage and similar obligations were attached to the amount payable to the undertaking. Under Section 6-A (3) (g) it was provided that "any person who immediately before the appointed day (i. e. 1-1- 1976) was in the employment of the licensee shall become an employee of the Board. " Before the Labour Court on the one hand respondent No. 2- workman, was the party and on the other hand U. P. State Electricity Board and Municipal Board, Meerut were parties as employers. Before the Labour Court Municipal Board, Meerut only contended that as its electricity unit had been taken over by the U. P. S. E. B. with effect from 1-1-1976 hence it was not liable in respect of any claim by the workman. Thereafter they did not take any interest in the case and did not controvert or contest the case of the workman on merit. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages and further held that as workman would be deemed to be in service on 1-1-1976 hence U. P. S. E. B. was liable to pay back wages and take him back in service. The dispute was raised by the workman for the first time in 1977-78, i. e. after about two years from the date on which undertaking was acquired by U. P. S. E. B. Under Section 6-A of the Electricity Act added by Uttar Pradesh only those employees became the employees of U. P. S. E. B. who were working on 21- 12-1975. Moreover all the obligations of the previous licensees were attached to the amount payable to the previous licence the owner of the undertaking was liable to furnish to the Board particulars of all liabilities and obligations incurred on the security of the undertaking and also of awards (Section 6-A (3) (f ). No award-had been passed by 1-1-1976 U. P. State Electricity Board was not in a position to say anything regarding the actions of undertakings prior to the appointed day i. e. 1-1-1976. Municipal Board did not contest the proceedings. U. P. S. E. B. could not contest the proceedings as it was nowhere in picture at the time of termination of service. It may be mentioned that against the same award which is challenged through this writ petition Municipal Board, Meerut also filed writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9030 of 1982 and got the same dismissed as infructuous through order dated 1-12-2003.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY I hold that petitioner Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board cannot be held liable for any action of the Municipal Board and by maximum respondent No. 2 could make a claim against the amount payable for the acquisition of the undertaking. U. P. S. E. B. can neither be liable to pay salary to respondent No. 2 nor to take him back in service. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. The impugned award in so far as it is against the petitioner is set aside. Petition allowed. .;