Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VAZEER SINGH versus M.D., B.S.N.L., NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vazeer Singh v. M.D., B.S.N.L., New Delhi And Others - WRIT - A No. 5349 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2212 (27 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner is working as driver on daily wage basis in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that there are five posts sanctioned and out of them two are lying vacant as has been informed by Divisional Engineer by letter dated 12.9.2005 to A.G.M. (West) Office of C.G.M.,Meerut.

In this regard the petitioner has submitted a representation-dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) for appointment as a permanent driver in vacant posts of driver before respondent no.3, Telecom, District Manager, Rampur, which has remained unaction till date. He also claims regularization under Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunication, 1989 on the ground that he has been working for the last 13 years and has completed 240 days continuous service in each of the calendar year.

Whether the petitioner has completed 240 days continuous service or not is a disputed question of fact, which can be decided by the Labour Court by adducing oral and documentary evidence. It is not feasible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Apart from the facts that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against the aforesaid grievance before the Labour Court in view of the decisions in Chandrma Singh Vs. Managing Director U.P. Co-operative Union Lucknow and others,  (1991)1UPLBEC(2)-898,   Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union, (2005) 6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another, 2005 107 FLR-729, the only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that a direction may be issued to  respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 9.11.2005 within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

The standing counsel has no objection to this prayer.

In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to  respondent no.3 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 9.11.2005 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before  respondent no.3  within 15 days from today.

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the representation, he may approach the Labour Court.

Dated 27.1.2006

CPP/-5349-2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.