P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments of the trial Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the Lower Appellate Court vide which the first appeal filed by the petitioner-Nigam was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiffs were earlier working in the Transformers Repair Workshops as Technician Grade II. After the formation of Nigam, a need was felt to reorganise the Transformer repair workshop and Meter Testing Laboratories. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the Board of Directors of the Nigam and a decision was taken which was circulated on 6.2.2002. As per the said decision, Technician Grade II who had qualification of matric plus two years ITI were to be adjusted as Assistant Sub Station Attendant. Subsequently, however, clarification with the approval of the Director Finance was issued whereby it was clarified that only such Technical-Technician Grade II who had the qualification of ITI in the trade of electrician/electronic/wireman would be adjusted against the post of Assistant Sub Station Attendant and all other technicians be adjusted as Assistant Lineman. The plaintiffs have filed the present petition claiming adjustment as Assistant Sub Station Attendant. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as the Court found that the decision taken by the Board of Directors of Nigam could not have been modified by one Director only. The relevant finding of the Lower Appellate Court is as under : "The facts are not disputed. All the four plaintiffs were earlier working in Transformers Repair Workshop as technician Gr. II. It is also not disputed that they are qualified matric with ITI. It is also not disputed that in order to reorganise the surplus staff of transformers workshop and meter testing laboratories the Board of Directors of the Nigam have taken the decision which was issued vide office order No. 48/UH/P-144 dated 6.2.2002. The copy of the said office order is Ex. P1/D1. The annexure of the said order is Ex. D3 which is relevant for the decision of the present controversy. The relevant category has been mentioned as serial No. 7 and 9 of Annexure A (Ex. D3) of office order No. 48 dated 6.2.2002 Ex. P1/D1 which reads as under : JUDGEMENT_318_LAWS(P&H)8_2006_1.html
(3.) In the adovesaid annexure at serial No. 7, it is mentioned that a technician Gr. II qualified matric ITI was to be adjusted in operation construction organisation as ASSA and in category mentioned at serial No. 9 it is mentioned that technician Gr. II, unqualified, was to be adjusted as ALM. As already mentioned, it is not disputed that the plaintiffs are qualified matric ITI, so as per the serial No. 7 they were to be adjusted as ASSA.;