1 WP-5872-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5872 OF 2011 Laljit Dhaniram Yadav and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The General Manager, Greater Bombay Milk Scheme, Worli Dairy, Mumbai and anr. ..Respondents -- Mr.R.V.Sankpal, for petitioners. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 10 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C.: By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 23 rd February, 2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.315 of 2000. By that judgment, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). The said complaint was filed by the Government Milk Scheme Employees Union on the basis of the Government 2 WP-5872-11.sxw Resolution dated 23 rd September, 1975 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra. 2] The petitioners contended that six Class IV employees namely, S/Shri.Rajnath K. Yadav, Ran Yas S. Yadav, Rammilan S. Yadav, Sabhajit R. Yadav, Laljit D. Yadav and Dayaram S. Yadav rendered continuous service as Mazdoor and they have completed three years’ continuous service. In view of the Government Resolution dated 23 rd September, 1975, they are entitled to promotion in Class III cadre. Though they approached the respondents and requested to promote them to the cadre of Class III employees, the respondents did not bother to reply the representations. Since they were denied the promotion to Class III cadre, it amounted to unfair labour practice in as much as other employees were given benefit in accordance with the said Government Resolution. Even the employees who are junior to the petitioners have been given promotion in accordance with the said Government Resolution. Based on these assertions, the Union instituted complaint under the Act. 3] The respondents filed written statement and contended that the 3 WP-5872-11.sxw cause of action arose in the year 1988 whereas, the complaint was instituted in the year 2000 which is barred by limitation. The respondents, in the written statement, gave dates of absorption of all the six workmen. Reliance was also placed on the Government Resolution dated 15 th April, 1991 to contend that these workmen did not possess requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Clerk in Class III. According to the respondents, it is necessary for the candidate to possess certificate of passing Marathi and/or English typing and mere passing S.S.C. Examination does not entitle any Class IV employee to be promoted to the class III cadre and especially to the post of Clerk. These six workmen never passed typing examination as also they never produced the certificate to that effect and therefore, they cannot be considered as entitled to promotion to the post of Clerk. 4] On the basis of the pleadings, the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. Considering the material on record, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. In paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence brought on record by the workmen was not sufficient to 4 WP-5872-11.sxw show that they have been discriminated and the persons who were junior to them were promoted excluding these six workmen. The Government Resolution dated 23 rd September, 1975 does not give absolute right to the persons who have passed S.S.C. Examination to claim promotional benefits. The said Government Resolution prescribed that there should be vacancy available in a particular year. The Industrial Court also held that the evidence was too short to hold that they are eligible or entitled to benefit of Government Resolution dated 23 rd September, 1975. 5] In support of this petition, Mr.Sankpal strenuously contended that all the six workmen were eligible and they are entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 23 rd September, 1975. The respondents have discriminated these six workmen though they are eligible for promotion to the posts of Clerk in Class III cadre. I do not find any substance in this submission made by Mr.Sankpal. The preamble of the Government Resolution dated 23 rd September, 1975 recites that according to the order contained in Government Circular dated 16 th October, 1964, only a member of Class IV service who passed the S.S.C. examination while in service is eligible for 5 WP-5872-11.sxw promotion to the post of Clerk, if he has completed three years continuous service in Class IV service. The Government had under consideration for some time past the question of revising these orders so as to make them applicable even to those members of Class-IV service who joined this service after passing the S.S.C. examination. It is in that context, the Government Resolution dated 23 rd September, 1975 lays down criteria for fixation of seniority as also percentage of vacancy occurring in a particular year. The six workmen has not brought on record sufficient evidence to indicate that the respondents have violated the terms of the Government Resolution dates 23 rd September, 1975. 6] In the result, I do not find any substance in this petition. The petition fails and the same is dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]