BALJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES & EXPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2016-4-11
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 08,2016

BALJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Punjab Small Industries And Export Corporation Ltd. And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) This is an old case of 1997 shown in the regular cause list to be taken up for final disposal being amongst the longest pending cases on my board of the present roster which is sufficient notice of appearance for the respective parties to attend to the case. Since no one appears for respondent No. 2, this Court is not compelled to await appearance of each and every counsel engaged who would have deemed notice of the proceeding that the matter would be heard on merits and no frivolous adjournment would be granted. Hence the said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Heard the learned counsel present and who are prepared with their respective cases and ready for advancing arguments.
(2.) The issue before the Court is as to whether the Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation') could have abdicated its powers under Article 73 of the Articles of Association of the Corporation in favour of the Finance Department of the Government of Punjab and the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Punjab, to render the amendment made in the Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Employees Service Bye - Laws, 1965 (for short 'the Bye Laws') otiose and unenforceable which amendment enhanced the minimum qualifications for promotion to the post of Sec. Officer from non -graduate to graduate degree as essential for eligibility. The post of Senior Assistant is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Sec. Officer. The office order promoting the petitioner as Sec. Officer was made subject to "concurrence" of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (Cell) in the Government of Punjab and further a rider was put in the office order that it will be subject to "approval" from the Government.
(3.) After the amendment was carried out in the Bye Laws, the petitioner was promoted as Sec. Officer by office order dated 28.02.1994/01.03.1994 (Annex P -2) i.e. the date on which amendment was introduced in Bye -Law 3.1 of the Bye Laws. The admitted position is that neither the concurrence nor the awaited approval came from the quarters concerned. In other words, the amendment to the Bye Laws has been rendered infructuous only on account of non -receipt of concurrence/approval.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.