6 Rashtriy Koyla Khadan zdoor Sangh(INTUC) Through its President, Shri R.S.Jaiswal, Aged .5‘5...years, .Churcha Colliery Korea(Chhattisgarh) Desk Officer, New Delhi. be Government Ministry of Labour, of India,_ ‘ f " 7 im /2. South Eastern Coal Field Lited Through its Chief Genera Manager P.O. Baikunthpur Dist. Korea (CG). IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR w.P.(5) 3Z [2005 Petitioner : a Ma r ‘ > ! ' ‘ l e f l , WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA GRPRJ—‘FSBSOw-12/2000—~50,000 Shri R. Gary Mukhopadhey, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. The petiiioner a registered Trade Union, raised an industrial dispute against the management ofthe SE C.L. wherein it was alleged that certain discrepancies with respect to promiation of Shri RS. Jaiswal, Sr. Clerk have taken place. In the conciliation proceedings, this stand was taken that the management While giving promoticn to its employees has not followed the nouns/rules of the cadre scheme and promoted the juniors of Shri R.S. Jaiswal by superceding him and has deprived Shri R.S. Jaiswal, from the huits of promotion inspite of the fz ct that Mr. Jaiswal was eligible for the $31116 .' nt was arrived at, the appropriate Government referred the dispute or its lawml adjudication before the Central Government Industrial T bunal-cun—Labour Court, Jabalpur. A copy of reference has been filed s Annexure-P/Z. The schedule of the reference is as unden- Whan no amicable settls “Whether the actz’ n 0f the Chief Generat Manager, Baikunth ur Area of SECL,‘ in not giving notional sen my to Sh. RS. Jaiswal m Clerical Grade-I, w tlz retrospective enézctfrom Clerk, with retrospective efect from 1/6/1 91 and promotion with retrospective e}fect is legal and justified? If not, to what relief workman is entitled? " . t e m ww (Wm ”W“’ “T” gig w gr“; ;;§ mm am ‘ am .~~.~ whRWmwo€f§f§éIWv . mw 3m , . i Km 18332005 ‘ E wwwmg E E A1161" this reference an ap wasvsent by the petitioner to the re corrections. Learned counsel for the 'pé plication/representation dated 4. 12.2004 spondent no. 1 for the purpose of certain :titioner’ submits that the word notional before the word seniority in the echedule of reference has wrongly been added and t-he petitioner prayed for deletion of this Word ‘Notional’. He further submits that the Union apprehends that if the reference is allowed in favour of Shri R.S. Jaiswal, his seniority will be notional seniority and he will not be able to get benefit in cr per reference. l have heard learned courts perused the reference order dated 4 Atter bare pewsal of the tnsequence of fixation of the seniority as tel for the petitioner at length and also 10.2002 (Annexure-P/2). der dated 4.10.2002, it is apparent on record that in fact, the matter of promotion with retrospective effect” is under reference. The last two line clearly indicate about the same which are quoted as under:— lt is a settled principle o law that the industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to construe the referen e so as to bringwout the real dispute‘for p r / . x ‘7 e its decision. The Tribunal has not 1y such powers butidutg' ‘Lcszast on it, to ‘ ............Promotio with retrospective edect is t’egal and justyde‘ ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitle ?" e wmm wmg WW {WW W? afga my m Wgag‘tnii?W .~2_. mmr e-%%¥T ”car f$fi$ aw: m&§; @arsa“ gammairm; W a W' P“ N.96; .%.?9§ m Wwg Egvizwg ea‘gé‘w Vim? (Wggm WEW “am“ my €FW¥FW§$T _3, fmd out what was the real dispute which was referred to it and to decide it and for that purpose, it has powers 1,0 look into the pleadings ofthe paxties. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR. 1963 SC 569 (Egress Newsgagers (R2 Ltd eVss The War/(em and others; that appropriate Government should frame order of reference carefully giving no room for ambiguity or controversy but the Courts must attemptto i construe the reference not too teehrically or in a pedantic manner but fairly and reasonably. Not only this the Hon’ble Apex Court further held in the matter of Jagw Udyag Lta! —Vs.— C. WK. Sang]; rQarterl in A.I.R 197é i SC 1352 that the scope of reference has to be gathered horn the circumstances preceding the Goverrment order. In fact. order of referenceisto be given a plain meaning. The Tribunals are to judgefconstrdegture and character of reference and in fact, the plth . and substancelfeferen a v e are to be focused and a dec1s1on . . is . to be rendered on the point in issue. If we examine the reference ith the aforesaid backgrounds, we will find that in fact, it covers entire ma er of promotion of the employee. The said matter is under reference on t ‘e basis of seniority from a particular date. Using word like ‘notional’ d s not change the subject of reference which is in fact, the matter of “pro lotion with retrospective effec " of the e employee which also covers the tter‘ of seniority which is certainly a circumstance preceding the order o reference. If the case “promotion i wilt :_" / (ii/ ( GRPRJ——FS/350-—l2/2000~50,000. 7% lAk H9N6 ‘962; /2mw§ g I ‘ r ‘WW (WW) 260 mwm wwmviwm $ai§wm x -4vk retrospective effect” will be adjuch Ieference. In the opinion of this COL interfere with the matter at this motion stage itself. No orders as’to costs. V i Certiiied copy as per rules. cated, it shall cover the entire subject of rt, there appears to be no reason‘HtO stage. The petition is dismissed at the /“”t Sunil Kumar Sinha » Judge #// Sdl‘ ‘ 1 GRPRJ FS/350—I2/2000 50,000.