- (1.) THE petitioner, an employee of the respondent Corporation, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing legality and validity of impugned award dated 19th June 2001 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal').
(2.) CHALLENGING the impugned award, the petitioner has inter -alia averred in the writ petition that at the threshold of his service career he was appointed as Machineman under the Central State Farm, Suratgarh w.e.f. 17th July 1961 and his said appointment was made substantive w.e.f. 1st of July 1965. While emphasizing his unblemished service career, the petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that since inception of his service career he has discharged his duties without any interruption but in want of requisite outlet of promotions despite rendering 15 years services no promotion/other service benefits have been accorded to him. As per the version of the petitioner, an incumbent having experience of 15 years is eligible for promotion to the post of Chargeman in accordance with the rules governing the province of promotion. Asserting with full emphasis at his command, the petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that at the time of his initial appointment and confirmation he was having requisite qualification for the post of Machineman. The grievances as reflected from the pleadings of the petitioner are that although he was eligible for promotion to the post of Chargeman but no endevour was made by the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion. Highlighting his afflictions, the petitioner has also averred in the writ petition that number of his juniors working in the cadre of Machineman were promoted to the post of Chargeman but his candidature was ignored by the respondents. Citing the example of one Mr. B.L. Sehgal, the petitioner has alleged that after his retirement in the year 1987 as Chargeman, the petitioner submitted a representation on 27th of July 1987 calling upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion but the said representation was not paid any heed by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations from time to time ventilating his grievances but all those representations went in vain. Quoting the examples of some other incumbents, who were transferred in the office of Corporation at Suratgarh in the capacity of Machineman, the petitioner has categorically averred in the writ petition that although they were transferred due to misconduct/disciplinary action, yet they were promoted in the cadre of Chageman. The petitioner has further averred in the writ petition that denial of consideration of his candidature for promotion was absolutely arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents and therefore being aggrieved from the omissions and commissions of the respondents, he raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer by taking shelter of Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). The industrial dispute raised by the petitioner was entertained by the conciliation officer and despite sincere efforts being made by the conciliation officer, no settlement could be arrived at between the rival parties and therefore in these situations, the conciliation officer forwarded its failure report to the appropriate government. The appropriate government on consideration of the failure report, found that industrial dispute is in existence between the rival parties and consequently vide its notification dated 16th of September 1995 referred the industrial dispute of the petitioner for adjudication before the learned Tribunal. In terms of the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted his statement of claim before the learned Tribunal and the statement of claim was replied by the respondents. After submission of reply to the statement of claim, the rival parties adduced their documentary and oral evidence. On conclusion of the evidence of the rival parties, the learned Tribunal adjudicated the reference by the impugned award and answered the reference against the petitioner.
(3.) ON behalf of the contesting respondents, reply to the writ petition was submitted. In the return, while refuting the claim of the petitioner for promotion, the respondents have averred that promotion is not a matter of right for an employee and it is governed by a set of rules and an incumbent cannot claim promotion dehors the rules. As per the version of the respondents, the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Chargeman as per the rules governing the said province. Joining the issue with the petitioner on the issue of promotion, the respondents have categorically averred in the reply that as per rules, mode for recruitment to the post of Chargeman is 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Adverting to the channel of promotion, the respondents have placed on record Annex.R/1 wherein under the caption "Channel of Promotion" following recitals are contained: "Mechanics and Sr. Tractor Operators (within minimum of 2 years experience as Mechanics with 5 years service in the cadre. Should be Matriculate with ITI Certificate in diesel/petrol engines." ;