1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9676/08 Madho Singh Bhati vs. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur Date of order: 12.10.2009. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit for the petitioner. ... The petitioner is aggrieved against the award dated 22.5.2008 by which the petitioner's claim based on the ground of giving promotion to one of the employee Hari Singh, who according to the petitioner was junior, has been rejected by the Labour Court, Jodhpur. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents though submitted reply to the claim-petition denying the petitioner's claim and submitted that Hari Singh was given promotion on the basis of reservation. However, that fact stands contradicted by the respondent's own communication sent to the labour court dated 20.4.2002(Ex.3), wherein it has been stated that Hari Singh has not been given promotion on the basis of, he being falling in reserved category but he was given promotion in general category. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent's officer in his cross-examination clearly admitted that said Ex.3 was written on the basis of the record, however, in his cross- 2 examination, he stated that Hari Singh was not given promotion in general category candidates. In view of the above, the labour court committed error of law in relying upon the self-contradicting statement of the respondent's witness as well as reply. It is also submitted that in that situation, it was the duty of the respondent to place on record the material documents to show that Hari Singh was given promotion in the reserved category candidates. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the labour court has considered all these aspects in detail in the impugned award dated 22.5.2008 and thereafter held that Hari Singh was given promotion in reserved category. The labour court also observed that the dispute has been raised after inordinate delay of 22 years and the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 20.7.1976, 1.7.1982 and 22.4.1993, but in fact challenging the order dated 20.7.1976. At this juncture it will be relevant to mention here that said Hari Singh was not the member of reserved category, is not the case and it is also not in dispute that rules provide promotion on the basis of reservation and roster. 3 In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition which has been filed to challenge the award dated 22.5.2008 whereby the petitioner's claim has been rejected on merit as well as on the ground of delay. Hence the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.