SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition undr Articles 226 and 27 of the Constitution of India: has been filed by the petitioners on 14.3.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 1 Judge, Industrial Tribunal Bikaner by which respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram was regularised in service with effect from 1.4.1982, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows: The respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram was engaged as casual daily rated workman on 10.9.1979 and thereafter, on 31.5.1980 he was engaged as work -charged employee. The case of the petitioners is that so far as the grant of regular pay scale and regularisation of services of work -charged employees is concerned, the Vidyut Board has from time to time constituted Screening Committee for adjudging the suitability of the workmen who had completed two years of service and as per the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the incumbents and workmen are entitled to be given regularisation and regular pay scale against sanctioned posts. The further case of the petitioners is that so far as the respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram is concerned, he has not completed two years of service as on 31.3.1982 and, therefore, there was no question of considering him for grant of regular pay scale by the Screening Committee constituted vide order Annex. 1 dated 26.9.1983 for the purpose of grant of regular pay scale and regularisation of services of those workmen who had completed two years of service as on 31.3.1982. It was further submitted by the petitioners that on 12.8.1987 a decision was taken by the erstwhile Board to review all such cases of those workmen who were either not present before the earlier Committee or were not found suitable. A copy of the order dated 12.8.1987 is marked as Annex. 2. It was further submitted by the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 was also called to appear before the Review Committee to consider his case for the grant of regular pay scale of Helper Gr. II after completion of two years of service as on 1.4.1982. The respondent No. 2 appeared before the Review Committee on 17.9.1987 which submitted its report to the erstwhile Board but the respondent No. 2 was not found suitable for the purposes of regularisation and his case was considered and rejected by the Screening Committee. In this regard, an order was passed on 21.11.1987 showing the recommendations of the Screening Committee. A copy of the said order dated 21.11.1987 is marked as Annex. 3. Thereafter, the Screening Committee was again reconstituted vide order dated 2.3.1989 (Annex. 4) and the scrutiny was done by the said Screening Committee and in this regard, an order Annex. 5 dated 23.3.1989 was passed for screening of workers who have completed two years service on 31st March, 1983 or thereafter upto 31.3.1987, to adjudge their suitability for regularisation and grant of regular pay scale. The said Screening Committee found the respondent No. 2 suitable for grant of regular pay scale with effect from 1.4.1989 and thus, as per the decision of the said Screening Committee, the respondent No. 2 was given regular pay scale on the post of Helper Gr. II with effect from 1st April, 1989 vide order dated 28.4.1990, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 6. Since the respondent No. 2 was given regular pay scale with effect from 1st April, 1989 vide order dated 28.4.1990 (Annex. 6), therefore, aggrieved from that order, the respondent No. 2 preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3876/90, but this Court directed the respondent No. 2 to first approach the Labour Court. Thereafter, through Notification dated 6.9.1999, a reference was made to , the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') to the effect whether non -giving of benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 after completion of two years service was proper and legal. The said reference was registered by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner being Industrial Dispute Case No. 1/2000. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 preferred his claim through Annex. 7 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner stating inter -alia that he was entitled to regular pay scale from the date when he completed two years of service in the year 1982 and the recommendations of the Screening Committee that regular pay scale be given to him with effect from 1st April, 1989 are illegal and without jurisdiction. A reply to the claim submitted by the respondent No. 1 was filed by the petitioners before the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner and the same is marked as Annex. 8 and in that reply, the main contention of the petitioners was that since the respondent No. 2 was found unsuitable by the Screening Committee, therefore, he could not be granted regular pay scale prior to 1.4.1989 and furthermore, grant of regular pay scale and regularisation of services is subject to adjudging the suitability by the Screening Committee. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner in support of their respective cases. After hearing both the parties and considering the entire material available on record, the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner through judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) allowed the claim of the respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioners to grant benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1st April, 1982 holding inter -alia: (1) That first appointment to repondent No. 2 was given on 10.9.1979 and on 31.3.1982 he had completed two years of his service. (2) That no doubt a meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 17.9.1987 and in that meeting, performance of various workmen was examined by the Screening Committee, but the respondent No. 2 was not found suitable for the purpose of granting regular pay scale, but by simply saying that he was not found suitable, that was not sufficient and on that ground, grant of regular pay scale could not be refused to respondent No. 2. Thus, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that non -giving of benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 after completion of two years service was not proper and legal and thus, the Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioners to grant the benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.4.1982. Aggrieved from the said judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 1 Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 did not complete two years of service as on 31.3.1982 as he was engaged as a work -charged employee in the year 1980 though he was appointed in the year 1979 and because of this fact, the Screening Committee which was constituted in the year 1983 did not consider the case of the respondent No. 2 as he had not completed two years of service as on 31.3.1982. Apart from this, the Review Committee constituted in the year 1987 considered the case of the respondent No. 2, but he was not found suitable. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 was not entitled to be regularised in service with effect from 1.4.1982. Hence, the impugned judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) granting benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 1.4.1982 are absolutely illegal and should be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned judgment and Award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the scope of interference by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the findings of the Labour Court/Tribunal is very limited one and since the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are based on correct appreciation of evidence, therefore, they should not be disturbed in this writ petition and this writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.;