G.Srinivas Rao v. The Central Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

HIGH COURT F iJ#:,: I6ffi ,35 l:ls;G,fli Ar HYD ERABAD FRIDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBE R O THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P, MADHAVI DEVI Between:

wJRtt pEttttott No, tt+ag or zoo+ G, Srinivas Rao. Sio I axmaiah,_aged.

. about 36 years, Occ: Electrician. Emp.

No 225864'1 , Quarrer No D-5'14. r'i'z"i"IxilIIi ri#n, N,andamarri_so4 231, Adirabad urstnct.

AND ...PET|T|ONER l The centrar Industriqr rribunar-cum-Labour, represented by its presiding officer, ^ IVanora njan Com pte4, tr,,t.,l. norO, fivO-Jia"# j I "t z rne Generar ManaoEr, The singarehi colieries co. Ltd, I\rrandamarrr Area-504 23'1 , Adilabad Distri"ct.

3. The Senior Svslems Aply+ (Slprogrammer). The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd Mandamarri-S04 231, Aditabdd oistiiEi.- " -''' ' 4 The colliery Manager, KK 5A rncrine, ihe Singareni coilieries co, Ltd KK 5A rncrine, Thd SinsaEr{i corieriei co.ito xa-rvJii'knJri,-H,ri,iiirii,indir"'uio District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Artifle 226 of the constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in thb affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to call for the records from the 1tr Respondent in M.p.No.16/2003 and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quash the drder passed by the lstrespondent in l\rl. p. No.16/2003, dt. 2B|OS|2OO4 by allowing tiie claim and directing respondent No.2 to 4 to pay the salary for the period f rom 3110712001 to 19/06/2002 with all other consequential benefits;

Counsel for the Petitionerl SRt. A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel forthe Responddnt No.1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL nt Nos.2 to 4: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO, SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES Counsel for the Respond The Court made the foll ing: ORDER \lx -,'

THE HONOI.]RABLE SMT' JUSTICE P' MADHAVT DEVI ll WRIT PETITI0N NO.11183 0F 2004

ORDER

This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the 1't respondent in M.P.No.16 of 2003, dt.28.05.2004 allowing the claim of the claimant and directing respondents 2 to 4 to pay the salary for the period lrom 31.07.2001 to 19.06.2002 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems llt and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.

Brief facts leading to the filing olthis Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Electrician in the respondent Company and was working as such frorn 18.10.1988. On 20.07.1998, the 2"d respondent issued a Notification for selection of EDP Assistant and the petitioner submitted his application and was initially appointed for 2 months and was further extended till 12.07.2001 when the 3'd respondent relieved the petitioner from the post of EDP Assistant. He was directed to report before the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the orders of the 3'd responclent, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 15689 ol 2001 and this l-lon'ble CoLrrt granted interim orders directing inYnuation of the petitioner as EDP Assistant. However, the l

\ W.P.No.1l483 of 2004 petitioner was n allowed to discharge duties from 31.07.2001 to 20.06.2002 when the Writ Petition was dismissed. According to the s entitled to the pay of EDp Assistant from petitioner, he w 31.07.2001to 20.

6.2002by virtue of the interim orders of the High Court. He therefo e filed M.P.No.16 of 2003 before the l,rrespondent to claim moneta benefits, but the same was dismissed and this Writ Petition was fl led ssai ling the sarle 3.

Learned co nsel lor the petitioner. Sri A.K. Jaya prakash Rao, reiterated the sub issions made in the affidavit, while leamed counsel for respondents 2 to 4, Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, has relied upon the averments in the c unter filed on behalf of the respondent Company. At para 5 of the co ter affidavit, it is stated as under:

" (5) rn reply to averments made in para -5, I submit fhat e introduced during the year 1997_9g in the mpany and for the /irst time computers were comDuler.t w Respondent initiolly inStal d in Area l.T. Department and the r)epartmenl were d with qualified candidates for the operation of ala entry The Clerical staff available at that time not well equl computers.for was nol hayin ln order to co ntinimunt bosic knowledge of computer operation. c up wilh lhe t,ork, it became essential to deploy sonte Ltf' the c ndidotes on tetnporory basi.s to t,ork in Area l.T. Deportntcn!. ln this proces.r o cirurlor No. pi MM/2 5/2/9g/5 6. datetl t i.ssued lo dit'lerent unit.s in Mandamari Areo 20.07.1998 u.

calling opplic ions fi'om the candidates po.s.tessing Diploma or Certi/icare in omputer Science.s lo tyork on compufers for data tal r1[ I 3 candidates among a total of nearly I ] ,000 ndamarri Area made applications. As it was for idates were being drawn to work on computers, a proce.ssing. A t employees in o the first time ca selection was ade and in the call letter issued to the candidates

W.lj.No.l l48l oi 2004 concerned it was specificctlly mentioned that rhey will be subjectecl to tests to find out their suitability to work on computers on temporary basis. Among the selected candidates the petilioner was one and he was deputed to work at Computer Centre for a temporary period of Wo months from 27.08. l9gg. The petittoner,s claim that applications were calledfor Electronic Data processing Assistant (EDP) is incotect. For the post of E.D.p.Assistant, a Clerk Grade-I with minimum service of 5 yeas as Clerk Grade-l and possessing knowledge of Typewriting @nglish) is eligible ancl the selection is based on wriuen test ancl the selecred cctnclidate will be on training for one year cluring u,hich periott he will be designated as EDP Assistcrnt Trainee. Thus the petitioner was never calledfor the post oJ EDp Assitjtant ancl the petitioner is not having the sctid quolificarion Jir c.ompeting Jot. .;clettittn tu the post of EDP Assistant. "

4, Thus, it can be seen that the peritioner was appointed as EDp Assistant on a temporary basis and was revefted back to the post of Electrician and the Hon'ble }{igh court in rhe interim directions also directed the petitioner to be continued as an Electrician only. Therefore, there was no cause of action for any relief to the petitioner to pay the difference of salary for the period between 31.07.2001 to 19.06.2002.

5.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to CoStS.

6.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition shall also stand dismissed AssrsrAilrdfifirfli{i* \ i/rRUE coPY/'

. ecrrcKcea I To, One CC One CC loPUCl One CC Two CD One Spa ls.ti'ft *#ItriiEi,[Si,g;A.i:8:,f .p,i,"r,?Lo,citorGenerar 8;',ij Sreenivasa Rao, sc for Singareni coilieries topucl re Copy CHR

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212021 r{, t:

S \ )c 2$2 t

ORDER

c:t'l 4f *?):/ t-ir W.P.No.11483 of 2004 tr tJ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b