Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the union for quashing the award dated 13.8.2012 (Annexure P -9) and further issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to promote Mahavir Singh as Peon and Clerk with effect the date his junior Ashok Kumar was redesignated and promoted as Peon with effect from 17.11.1983 in place of 7.3.1984 and Clerk with effect from 20.3.1987 in place of 1.2.1988 along with all consequential benefits. A perusal of the paper -book would go on to show that the petitioner union espoused the claim of one Mahavir regarding the above said dispute and served a demand notice dated 28.6.2007 (Annexure P -7). Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. After examining the issue in detail, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that Ashok Kumar against whom the dispute was raised had not even been arrayed as respondent. Ashok Kumar was promoted as Clerk on 20.3.1987 whereas Mahavir Singh was promoted as Clerk with effect from 1.2.1988 Mahavir Singh was adjusted as Peon on 7.3.1984 whereas Ashok Kumar had been adjusted as Peon prior in time on 17.1.1983. The workman had not raised any issue regarding the seniority even though he was promoted as Clerk with effect from 1.2.1988 and the demand had been raised after a period of about 20 years. Accordingly, it was held that the demand raised by the union was not justified and the reference was decided against the petitioner -union.
(2.) THE said award is not liable to be interfered with in view of the settled principle of service jurisprudence that an employee is well aware of his date of appointment and other promotions which he earns during his service career. In the present case, the dispute is regarding the redesignation and promotion in the years 1983 and 1988. Admittedly, the demand was raised for the first time that too by the Union on 28.6.2007. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : 1976 (1) SLR 53 considered the question of limitation in service matters and held that entertaining such petitions which are patently stale impede the working of the Courts. It was held as under: - 2... Not only respondent 2 but also respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957 apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra -ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put for -ward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters -The petitioner's petition should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal. This appeal is dismissed with costs. 3. In P. Chitharanja Menon & others Vs. A. Balakrishnan and others : 1977 (2) SLR 289, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once the legality of the promotion made in 1962 had not been challenged then the validity of the Government order in 1969 could not be challenged by filing a writ petition in the year 1972. The present case is also some what similar. Recently, the Apex Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa : 2011 (1) RSJ 624 has held that in seniority matters, delay should not be beyond a period of 3 years and the reasons for not approaching the Court should be explained. The relevant observation reads as under: 29. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal (supra), this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3 -4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.
(3.) THUS , keeping in mind the above observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned award of the Labour Court since the stale claim of promotion was sought to be raised after a period of 20 years on behalf of the Union whereas the employee had opted not to challenge the same. Accordingly, finding not merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine.;