STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed against the Labour Court award dated 12. 12. 1996, contained in Annx. 6 to the writ petition, wherein the respondent workman has been held to be entitled for promotion on the post of Work Supervisor from the post of Mate.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent workman had been working as Mate with the petitioner establishment and it is alleged that certain persons junior to him were also working as Mate have been promoted as Work Supervisor in pursuance of an agreement/compromise/settlement reached between the management and the employees' union and thus, being aggrieved, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute, which has been allowed by the learned Labour Court vide impugned award dated 12. 12. 1996. THE award had been made after recording following finding of facts: THEre are statutory rules not providing promotion from the post of Mate to Work Supervisor, rather it provided that a Mate can be promoted to Work Supervisor Gr. II if he possesses 5 years' experience and for the post of Work Supervisor Gr. I, Work Supervisors Gr. II or Work Mistri Gr. II having 5 years' experience become eligible to be considered.

(3.) THERE can be no quarrel with the legal proposition that Art. 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality or fraud and, if persons junior to the respondent workman had wrongly been promoted, the learned Labour Court ought not to have given the same benefit to the respondent workman, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sneh Prabha (4), Jaipur Development Authority vs. Daulat Ram Jain, (5), State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar Mann (6), and other cases reported in M/s Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre vs. D. G. Health Services & Ors. (7), and Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. Sampurah Singh