HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 26846 of 2003 DATED 20th September, 2011 BETWEEN The Management of Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Regional Manager. …….Petitioner and The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad And anr. ……Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 26846 of 2003 ORDER: Challenging the Award dated 07.08.2003 passed by the first respondent –Labour Court-I Hyderabad, in I.D.No. 39 of 2002, the Management of Express Publication, rep. by its Regional Manager, filed the present Writ Petition. By the aforesaid Award, the Labour Court declared that the action of the petitioner-Management is not justified in not considering the case of second respondent for promotion to the post of Senior Sub-Editor with effect from 1.4.1997 when his juniors were already promoted. The second respondent was appointed as an Apprentice Sub Editor on 21.06.1986 in the erstwhile Andhra Prabha Daily Newspaper and after completion of apprenticeship; he was placed on probation with effect from 27.01.1987. When his request for promotion to the post of Senior Sub-Editor was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer by order dated 16.3.1998, the second respondent filed Writ Petition No. 11154 of 1998. This Court while disposing of the said Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the subject matter, directed the respondent therein to refer the matter to the appropriate Court for adjudication and gave liberty to the second respondent to file his case for promotion before the said Court. Pursuant to the said direction, the Government made a reference under Section 10-1(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. The Labour Court upon consideration of the evidence on record, adjudicated the reference by Award dated 7.8.2003 as stated supra. Hence the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-management submitted that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right; that in the field of journalism and newspaper industry which can not be equated with other industries, to decide whether an employee is entitled to be promoted or not, the authorities are required to apply their mind in considering various factors such as seniority, work ability, efficiency, aptitude, skill, capability, alacrity, antecedents etc., and all of which cannot be found in the second respondent to consider his case for promotion; and that the second respondent has no vested right to claim promotion as a matter of automatic right be it on the basis of seniority or otherwise. The learned Counsel contended that if the length of service alone is to be considered, a proof reader having more number of years of service irrespective of his caliber will have to be considered to the post of Editor. He therefore submitted, that the Labour Court gravely erred in holding that the second respondent is entitled to the promotion to the post of Senior Sub-Editor with effect from 1.4.1997 and hence prayed for setting aside the impugned Award of the Labour Court. The learned Counsel for the second respondent, while reiterating the counter averments supported the findings of the Labour Court. Placing reliance on the Award of the Labour Court passed in I.D.No. 211 of 1991, which was upheld by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 7496 of 1995, dated 29.11.2002, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the promotion to the post of Senior Sub-Editor with effect from 1.4.1997 when his juniors were already promoted. He therefore submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. As can be seen from the record, it is apparent that three employees, namely Mr.A.Avadhani, Mr.Ch.V.Ramana Rao and Mr. Uma Maheswara Rao, who were appointed in the year 1991, 1991 and 1992 respectively in the petitioner-management were promoted ignoring the petitioner on 27.1.1997. It is true that the petitioner-Management should take into consideration the overall experience and suitability of the candidates while promoting to the higher posts. During the course of recording evidence of MW.1 on behalf of the petitioner- Management, it came to light that the promotion of the second respondent was denied as he availed leave more than the maximum limit of five days during the period from 7.12.1998 to 13.12.1992 and the same was treated as leave on loss of pay. Further MW.1 in his evidence deposed that the second respondent was in the habit of arguing with superiors with regard to shift duties, attendance and other matters and he was cautioned not to repeat the same. It is also admitted that it is not the case of the petitioner-Management that the work turnout by the second respondent was far below the average. From the evidence adduced on record, the Labour Court, being a fact finding authority, recorded a finding that the second respondent was put in sufficient length of service and he is eligible to the next immediate promotion and that there was no record worth believed that he was not efficient and his integrity was doubtful. It further recorded that the petitioner-management had not put forth any evidence on which grounds the promotion of the second respondent was not considered on par with Mr. K.Surender and T.Sudhakar who were considered for promotion after they withdrew their claims. The Labour Court, in my opinion, rightly answered the reference in favour of the second respondent herein. Further, in the similar and identical circumstances, when a dispute arises with regard to seniority, the Labour Court in its Award in I.D.No. 211 of 1991 directed the petitioner-Management to maintain a seniority list at least with reference to the Units as per Unit in their Unit- organization of their publication and also to maintain a confidential file for each journalist mentioning their merit, aptitude systemically to have an assessment of their merit, aptitude and conduct for considering their cases for promotion. This Court by common order datged 20.11.2002 in Writ Petition Nos. 7496 and 2296 of 1995 upheld the said Award of the Labour Court. On the face of the said order of this Court which attended finality having not been challenged, the petitioner-Management failed to substantiate as to how the cases of other Sub-Editors who were considered for promotion and as to what manner they were meritorious than the second respondent in the case on hand. Nothing is placed on record on this aspect. In the absence thereof, the impugned Award is impeccable and does not warrant interference. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20th September, 2011. Msnro