DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK LTD Vs. DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-33
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 29,2007

DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 5th November, 1996 passed by Industrial Tribunal-I( in short 'the Tribunal'), Delhi, whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner to prepare the seniority list of Supervisors and Accountants in accordance with the assurance given to the workmen in letter Ex.MW1/2 to Ex. MW1/10 and directed that the workmen/respondent would be treated as seniors to the Supervisors and their seniority shall be protected as against employees promoted with effect from 1.4.1981. The Tribunal directed that a fresh seniority list of Accountants be prepared on the basis of vacancies which existed as on 1st October, 1990 for post of Managers. Fresh selection of Managers be made in accordance with rule 25 of staff selection rules on the basis of revised seniority list and if the respondents are found eligible for promotions as managers in the year 1990 or in subsequent years, they will be entitled for payment of wages of managers from the said date.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that a dispute was referred to the Tribunal in December, 1991 in following terms: "Whether S/Shri Jagmohan, Ram Pal Tanwar, Praveen Jain, Naresh Chand Jain, S.K. Jain, S/Smt. Renu Gupta, Manju Garg, Vijay Gupta and Shri Neeraj Tyagi have been superseded and are entitled to be promoted as managers and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect."
(3.) The background of the dispute is that the above named respondents/officers were working as clerks in the petitioner bank in 1981-82 and they were not promoted alongwith other colleagues as Supervisors. They raised an industrial dispute being ID No.279 of 1983. They alleged that they had withdrawn their industrial dispute on the basis of an assurance given by the Dr. Subash Bhargava,, Vice Chairman of the Bank that they would be promoted with retrospective dates and their seniority shall be kept intact. They were not to be paid back wages. Only on this assurance they withdrew the industrial dispute. However, despite assurance, their seniority as Supervisors was not restored to them and the management did not fulfill its promise. Since their seniority was not restored, they were not considered for promotions to the post of managers in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 4th October, 1990 and they were bypassed. They alleged that selection of managers made on 4th October, 1990 was on the basis of wrong seniority list. However, they admitted that out of 9 workmen, Ram Pal Tanwar, Manju Garg, Jagmohan and Naresh Chand Jain were promoted as managers with effect from 21st July, 1992. Their contention is that they were entitled to be promoted in October, 1990 and their promotions in July, 1992 was not proper. Hence, they raised above Industrial dispute. Management in its written statement took the objections, inter alia, that no such assurance as claimed by the workmen was given to them regarding their seniority as against the employees already promoted. The Vice Chairman Mr. Subash Bhargava had no authority to give such assurance nor such assurance was given. The letters of Mr. Subash Bhargava, relied upon by the workmen was denied by the management and it was stated that if any such letter was written, it was without any competence or authority.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.