Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. Date of decision:1-4-2008. Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited. ...Petitioner. Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for workman/respondent No.2. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. In this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the award of Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 29.9.1993, Annexure P-8. It has been pleaded in the Civil Writ Petition that respondent No.2 joined the petitioner Corporation as a Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.120-300 with effect from 13.4.1969 on purely and ad hoc Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. -2- basis for a period of three months. Since the respondent No.2 was working on farm site on ad hoc basis, he acquired adequate knowledge of store articles and as such he was allowed to continue as a Clerk for another six months, vide order dated 25.9.1969 but his appointment, too, was on purely ad hoc basis. It is further pleaded that one Tara Singh, who had been working as an Assistant Store Keeper, left his job which resulted into creation of a vacancy and upon representation of respondent No.2, he was appointed officiating Assistant Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs.150-300 with effect from 1.11.1969. He continued to work on officiating basis on the post of Assistant Store Keeper and vide order dated 30.8.1979, he was promoted as Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs.160-400. It was stipulated in the said order that he will be on probation for a period of six months. The work and conduct of respondent No.2 was not found to be satisfactory during his probation period and as a result thereof, he was reverted to the post of Assistant Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs.510-800. However, subsequently, respondent No.2 was promoted as a Store keeper in the pay scale of Rs.570-1080 vide order dated 13.1.1983. Respondent No.2 made a representation in December, 1984 against the promotion of one S.P.Gupta, who was promoted as Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.225-500 on 11.3.1974 and thereafter promoted as Assistant Manager Accounts on 4.2.1981 in the higher pay scale. Mr. Gupta was Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. -3- promoted as an Accountant in the year 1974 and respondent No.2 made representation in the year 1984, i.e after a delay of more than ten years. The representation of respondent No.2 was considered and rejected and an intimation to that effect was sent to the Manager, Machinery and Customs, Ludhiana, under whom respondent No.2 was working. The respondent No.2 again represented regarding his seniority through his representation dated 3.8.1987 on the same grounds. In the said representation, he claimed to be placed above S.P.Gupta, Assistant Manager Accounts or in the alternative, prayed for promotion as Assistant Manager Stores, on the ground of seniority alone. According to the Service Bye-laws of the Corporation known as Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Employees Service Bye- laws, promotions in the Corporation were made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and no person has any right to be promoted on any post on the basis of seniority alone. Since respondent No.2 was claiming promotion above S.P.Gupta,on the ground that he had joined service as a Clerk prior to him, his representation was rightly rejected in view of Bye-law 3.4(b). S.P.Gupta, with whom the respondent No.2 was claiming parity was earlier selected by the Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation and since he had background on accounts side, he was appointed as a Clerk. Respondent No.2 was appointed as Stores Clerk vide order dated 23.12.1969 while Mr. Gupta was promoted as Assistant Accountant-cum-Cashier with effect from 11.3.1974. Thus, Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. -4- respondent No.2 and Mr. Gupta were allocated to different departments and they became members of different cadres. Mr. Gupta was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier and he had been looking after the accounts work since 1969 and had acquired sufficient knowledge on the accounts side. One post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.300- 600 was lying vacant with the petitioner-Corporation. The qualifications for the post of Accountant were SAS. Since no qualified SAS was available, therefore, keeping the experience of Mr. Gupta on accounts side, he was promoted as Accountant with effect from 14.3.1971 in the lower pay scale of Rs.225-500. The respondent No.2 had accepted his promotion as Store Keeper with effect from 13.1.1983 without any protest and he never made any representation against the promotion of Mr. Gupta. In the year 1980, one post of Assistant Manager Accounts was sought to be filled up. After considering all the eligible employees, Mr. Gupta who was then working as an Accountant with seven years experience was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager Accounts vide order dated 4.2.1981. It is further averred that the petitioner served demand notice through All India Trade Union Congress in December, 1987 while Mr. Gupta was promoted as Assistant Manager Accounts in February, 1981. Thus, there was a delay of seven years in serving the demand notice against the promotion of Mr. S. P.Gupta. The respondent No.2 was working in a different cadre with a separate channel of promotion. Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. -5- As such, he could not be promoted to the post of Assistant Manager Accounts, which required at least five years experience on the accounts side and since the respondent No.2 never worked on the accounts side, he was not promoted as an Assistant Manager Accounts. The Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh has answered the reference in favour of respondent No.2, vide award dated 29.9.1993. Respondent No.2 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed detailed written statement. I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that S.P.Gupta was appointed in a different cadre of accounts where the Gurmej Singh workmen (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was appointed in store department. S.P. Gupta has been granted promotion righty as he was in a different cadre than the cadre of Gurmej Singh, workman. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. Admittedly, the workman joined on 13.4.1969 as a Clerk whereas S.P.Gupta joined on 19.12.1969 as a Clerk. So, the feeder cadre of both the workman and S.P.Gupta was the same. The learned Labour Court has dealt with this aspect of the case elaborately. So, the above-said contention has no force and the same stands rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. -6- that since the said promotion is not covered by Sections 2(a) and 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as such the Labour Court was not well within its right to adjudicate upon the claim, whether the workman was entitled to promotion from the same date when S.P.Gupta was promoted. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. The State Government vide notification dated 31.5.1989 referred the following dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Tribunal for adjudication:- “Whether Shri Gurmej Singh is entitled to promotion for the post of Assistant Manager Stores, or Accounts? If so, from which date and with what other details?” The employer has not challenged the adjudication by availing any legal remedy. After adjudication of the claim, the petitioner is now estopped from taking the said plea. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner-Corporation has been permanently closed in the year 2003 and the retrenchment compensation has already been given to the employees including workman Gurmej Singh and as such the impugned award is liable to be set aside. I have carefully considered the said submission also but do not find any force in the same. Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 1994. -7- The award was passed much prior to the closure of the office of the Corporation. So, whatever benefit has accrued in favour of the workman cannot be taken away by just closing the petitioner- Corporation. No other point has been urged before me. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. April Ist ,2008. (K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge