Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No one appears for the Respondents - U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad and its authorities.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 29.5.1993 given by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad in adjudication case No. 70 of 1988. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether action of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - employer of not giving the pay and designation of Foreman to the Petitioner -workman who was driver - cum -mechanic was just and valid or not. The case of the Petitioner was that he was appointed as driver -cum -mechanic on 16.1.1961 and after the retirement of Shri K.B. Lal, Foreman - workshop -superintendent he was required to perform his (K.B. Lal's) duties. Earlier a judgment was passed by this Court in writ petition No. 21542 of 1988 on 18.1.1989 (Annexure -10). The writ petition was directed against an order of the tribunal refusing to consolidate the two cases, one in respect of the Petitioner and the other in respect of B.K. Singh (Adjudication case No. 6 of 1988). However, it was clarified that no finding recorded by the tribunal in other adjudication case i.e. 6 of 1988 will have any bearing upon the adjudication case in question. In the impugned award the said finding has been quoted. In the impugned award it is mentioned that Petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as a Foreman. Shri B.K. Singh had participated in the selection process and had obtained highest marks hence he was appointed on the post of Foreman. In paragraph -11 of the award Presiding officer held that post of Foreman was a promotional post and selection on the said post was made after holding the examination and interview and in the said process Shri B.K. Singh had participated and succeeded. It was further held that even if Petitioner was being paid more pay than Shri B.K. Singh still promotion of Shri B.K. Singh pursuant to written examination and interview could not be set aside or Petitioner could not be deemed to have been promoted on the post of Foreman/Superintendent workshop. Accordingly it was held that Petitioner being almost illiterate, the appointment of Shri B.K. Singh having been made after written test and interview, claim of the Petitioner could not succeed.
(3.) I do not find least error in the impugned award. I fully agree with the reason given by the Presiding officer of the Industrial tribunal. Petitioner did not possess necessary educational qualification which are essential for the post of Foreman which is promotional post. Shri B.K. Singh was promoted after qualifying the written test and interview and he also possessed necessary qualifications.;