PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 1.3.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi whereby the appeal of the Appellants -Defendants was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 1.10.1991 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Joginder Nagar were modified to the extent that the Respondent -Plaintiff being work -charged retrenched employee, shall be given preference for employment by the Appellants -Defendants over and above the daily waged employees as and when such a vacancy arises in future. The Sub Judge had decreed the suit for mandatory injunction in favour of the Respondent -Plaintiff and against the Appellants -Defendants directing them to re -employ the Respondent -Plaintiff as work -charged T -Mate in Shanan Power House Circle, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi forthwith. Admittedly, the decree of the Sub Judge was not executed and the Respondent -Plaintiff continues to be out of employment.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent -Plaintiff was working as a work -charged T -Mate wiol the Appellants -Defendants at the Shanan Power House, Joginder Nagar w.e.f. 6.11.1980. He was retrenched on and w.e.f. 30.6.1982 vide order dated 27.5.1982 Ex.P -1. It was mentioned in the order Ex.P -1 that he would be given preference/priority as and when recruitment would be made in future, according to the seniority of the retrenched work -charged employees. It is not in dispute that the Respondent -Plaintiff was at Serial No. 34 in the register of the retrenched employees. Instructions to give preference/priority in giving re -employment to the retrenched employees according to their seniority, were also issued by the Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board vide letter dated 22.6.1983 Ex.P -7.' Despite this, the Respondent -Plaintiff was not given re -employment, though number of persons were employed as T -Mates or as work -charged employees. In these circumstances he filed his suit on 12.9.1989.

(3.) The Appellants -Defendants resisted the suit on number of preliminary objections that it was not maintainable in the present form; the Respondent -Plaintiff has no locus -standi as well as cause of action to file it; the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and it was barred by time. But on merits, it was admitted that they had recruited persons on daily wage basis after the retrenchment of the Respondent -Plaintiff, who were lateron made work -charged employees on completion of their 1000 working days as per the instructions dated 30.6.1986 Ex.P -4. The Respondent -Plaintiff filed replication reiterating the allegations made in the plaint and alleging that the preliminary objections were without any substance.