IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.14103 OF 2011 AND M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2011 R.Senthivel ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Secretary Chennai Port Trust Chennai – 600 001. 3.Thiru D.Bairavan Lascar Syrang 4.Thiru A.Venkadesan Lascar Syrang R3 & 4 to be served through the Secretary Chennai Port Trust Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the 2nd respondent's order made in No.SCT4/3272/10/GA dated 28.04.2010, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as Syrang and Lascar Syrang from the date on which his immediate junior i.e. the third respondent came to be promoted as such with all benefits both service and monetary. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.M.Devendran For Respondents 3 & 4 : No appearance O R D E R The petitioner was appointed as Lascar Grade–II on 02.07.1992. Thereafter, he was appointed as Lab Attender cum Section Cutter on 01.08.1994. Since there was lack of promotional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunities, he sought reversion to the post of Lascar Grade – II and accordingly, he was reverted to the said post on 17.08.1999. However, the period between 1994 and 1999 was not counted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Lascar Grade–II. 2.The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 relating to counting of seniority, before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai and the same was taken on file as I.D.No.73/2002. The Tribunal allowed the industrial dispute on 15.09.2003 in I.D.No.73/2002 and directed the respondent Port Trust to restore the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Lascar Grade–II from 02.07.1992. 3.Though 17 workmen, who were juniors to the petitioner and who joined as Lascar Grade – II after 02.07.1992, challenged the award dated 15.09.2003 passed in I.D.No.73/2002 by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.24035/2004, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2006. Some of the unions have also filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5759 of 2009 and 35431 of 2007 questioning the award. However, the said writ petitions were withdrawn subsequently. Thus, the award dated 15.09.2003 passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.73/2002 became final. 4.Subsequently, the petitioner was given promotion as Lascar Grade–I, with effect from 08.07.2000, by an order dated 30.11.2007. The promotion given to the petitioner was challenged by his junior one Mr.R.Mathialagan in W.P.No.12713 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 26.08.2010. 5.The grievance of the petitioner is that two juniors namely, respondents 3 and 4 in the present writ petition were promoted as Syrang, with effect from 07.12.2005 and 20.09.2006 respectively and thereafter, they were further promoted as Lascar Syrang with effect from 11.09.2008 and 19.01.2009 respectively. But the petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Syrang and Lascar Syrang. Therefore, he made a representation dated 05.03.2010. But the same was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order dated 28.04.2010 stating that as per the award of the Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled to the original seniority in the post of Lascar Grade-II, but he is not entitled to further promotion to the post of Syrang and Lascar Syrang that was given to his juniors. It is stated that the juniors, namely respondents 3 and 4, empanelled earlier for the post of Syrang before the petitioner was promoted as Lascar Grade-I. 6.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 28.04.2010 of the second respondent and for a consequential direction to promote him as Syrang and Lascar Syrang from the date on which, his immediate juniors were promoted, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with service and monetary benefits. 7.The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 have reiterated the same reasoning, that has been stated in the impugned order. 8.Heard both sides. 9.The petitioner was appointed as Lascar Grade-II on 02.07.1992. He was promoted as Lab Attender cum Section Cutter, on 04.08.1994. Since there was lack of promotional opportunities, he sought reversion to the post of Lascar Grade – II. His request was considered and accordingly, he was reverted to the post of Lascar Grade–II vide order dated 18.08.1999. However, the period between 1994 and 1999 was not counted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Lascar Grade–II. Hence he was forced to raise an industrial dispute seeking restoration of his seniority in the cadre of Lascar Grade–II. Since his seniority in the post of Lascar Grade-II was not counted from 02.07.1992, his juniors were promoted as Lascar Grade–I, while the same was denied to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Government of India referred the industrial dispute relating to the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Lascar Grade–II before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai. The dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.73/2002. The Tribunal allowed the industrial dispute on 15.09.2003 in I.D.No.73/2002 and directed the respondent Port Trust to count the services of the petitioner as Lascar Grade–II from 02.07.1992. 10.The award of the Tribunal was questioned by 17 workmen, who were juniors to the petitioner, by filing writ petition in W.P.No.24035 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2006. Some trade unions have also filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5759 of 2009 and 35431 of 2007 questioning the award. However, those writ petitions were withdrawn subsequently and thus, the award of the Tribunal became final. Only after this Court dismissed the writ petition in W.P.No.24035 of 2004 on 20.12.2006, the respondent Port Trust passed the order dated 30.11.2007 granting promotion to the petitioner as Lascar Grade–I, with effect from 08.07.2000. 11.In the meantime, the juniors to the petitioners, namely respondents 3 and 4, were promoted as Syrang with effect from 07.12.2005 and 20.09.2006 respectively and thereafter, promoted as Lascar Syrang with effect from 11.09.2008 and 19.01.2009 respectively. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to give him also promotion from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted. But the same was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order dated 28.04.2010 stating that the award of the Tribunal would restore his seniority in the post of Lascar Grade–II https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and therefore, he would not claim promotion to the post of Syrang and Lascar Syrang. It is also stated that before the petitioner was promoted as Lascar Grade–I, his juniors were promoted and therefore, he could not claim the post of Syrang. Since he could not claim the post of Syrang, he could not also claim the post of Lascar Syrang. 12.After the award dated 15.09.2003 passed in I.D.No.73/2002 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal attained finality, the petitioner was promoted as Lascar Grade-I by an order dated 30.11.2007 with effect from 08.07.2000. One Mr.R.Mathialagan, who was appointed as Lascar Grade–II in the year 1995, questioned the promotion given to the petitioner as Lascar Grade–I, by filing the writ petition in W.P.No.12713 of 2009 contending that the petitioner did not render eight years of service in the post of Lascar Grade–II as on 08.07.2000 and therefore, he should not have been promoted with effect from 08.07.2000. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.08.2010. This Court held that since the award of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court, the respondent Port Trust was correct in counting the service from 1972 to 2000 as service rendered in Lascar Grade-II. 13.Applying the same principle, the petitioner should have been granted promotion to the post of Syrang and Lascar Syrang. All these posts are un-skilled posts. There is no reason for the respondents to deny promotion to the petitioner as Syrang and thereafter as Lascar Syrang, when his juniors were promoted. Further, in the impugned order dated 24.08.2010, it was stated that by the time when the petitioner was promoted as Lascar Grade–I by the order dated 30.11.2007, with effect from 08.07.2000, the respondents 3 and 4 were already promoted as Syrang and therefore, he could not claim promotion to the post of Syrang and thereafter, as Lascar Syrang. In my view, such contention has no substance. Further, in the impugned order, it is stated that the respondent Port Trust has shown the petitioner as senior correctly by counting his service from 02.07.1992, after reversion from the post of Lab Attender cum Section Cutter. But at the intervention of one of the Unions, he was treated as junior and the same was interfered by the Industrial Tribunal in the award dated 15.09.2003 passed in I.D.No.73 of 2002. In these circumstances, the respondent Port Trust is not correct in stating that when the panel for promotion to the post of Syrang was prepared, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Lascar Grade–I and therefore, he was not considered for the said post. Such contention of the respondent Port Trust has no merit. Though the award was passed in the year 2003, the respondent Port Trust did not implement the same, due to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. The order dated 30.11.2007 was passed after the writ petition in W.P.No.24035 of 2004 was dismissed on 20.12.2006. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not be blamed. There is no valid reason given by the respondent Port Trust for not granting promotion to the petitioner, while his juniors were promoted as Syrang and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ later as Lascar Syrang. 14.Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to promote the petitioner as Syrang and Lascar Syrang from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar TK To 1.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Secretary Chennai Port Trust Chennai – 600 001. 1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.55686 W.P.NO.14103 OF 2011 RK {CO} TP/13.9.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/