- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 31.07.1996 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1992, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed to promote the Respondent No. 2 with effect from 19.12.1973 to the post of Stores Officer (E-2), with effect from 05.08.1976 to the post of Deputy Manager (E-3), with effect from 30.08.1978 to the post of Manager (E-4), with effect from 01.10.1984 to the post of Deputy Chief Material Manager (E-S), with effect from 31.12.1987 to the post of Addl. Chief Material Manager (E-6) and with effect from 31.12.1990 and to pay him the difference of pay and other benefits. The said Award has been mainly challenged on the ground that the learned Labour Court has illegally exercised jurisdiction under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in rendering the said Award. The court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 33A when there is violation of provisions of Section 33 of the said Act. In the instant case, there was no violation of Section 33 of the Act, as such application under Section 33A filed by the concerned workmen is not maintainable.
(2.) It has been stated that when the proceeding was initiated on the application of the concerned workmen purportedly under Section 33A of the said Act, the writ petitioner had seriously raised the preliminary issue of maintainability of the application by filing an application (Annexure- 2). They also requested the learned Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of the application under Section 33A. But the said application was rejected by order dated 24.01.1994, on the ground that all the issues will be decided at the same time in order to avoid piecemeal hearing in deciding the preliminary issue. The petitioner contended that the Misc. Case No. 5 of 1992 was filed by the respondent-workmen, on the ground that his service condition was changed during pendency of Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. According to the concerned workmen, he was given promotion to the post of Executive Assistant Grade-I with effect from 01.03.1972, whereas several persons junior to him were put at par with him, which amounts to alteration in his service conditions during pendency of Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. According to the petitioner, admittedly, the promotion was given with effect from 01.03.1972 whereas Reference Case was of 1973, therefore, Reference Case No: 39 of 1973 was not pending in 1972 when promotion was given. In view thereof, the said promotion order does not attract the provisions of Section 33. In that view also, the application of the concerned workmen under Section 33A was not entertainable. It has been further contended that in the cases arising on the similar facts, the learned Labour Court has given a common Award in Misc. Case Nos. 3/91, 4/91, 5/91, 6/91, 7/91, 8/91, 1/92, 2/92, 3/92 and in other Misc. Cases holding that the service conditions of the workmen concerned in those cases were violated, as they were superseded to their juniors during pendency of Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 and had directed the Management to give promotion with effect from the date their juniors were promoted. The said Award was challenged by the petitioner in several writ petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos. 140/95(R), 141/95(R), 142/95(R), 143/95(R), 144/95(R), 146/95(R), 147/95(R), 148/95(R) and 150/95(R) as also in C.W.J.C. No. 1485/91(R). The Division Bench which heard the matter had considered the facts and materials in detail and held that the dispute in Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 was regarding promotion to the higher posts, had no nexus with the subject matter of the pending dispute in Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 and the alleged supersession of the workmen cannot be said to be an alteration of the service conditions to their prejudice in a matter connected with the pending dispute. The said judgment was contested up to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11360 of 1995, along with other Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court after going into the matter in detail did not interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, as then was.
(3.) Mr. Baban Lal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award is contrary to the said findings of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court and is wholly illegal and erroneous. Learned Labour Court has wrongly held that since the promotion was a subject matter of industrial dispute in Reference Case No. 39 of 1973, supersession of the workmen as Respondent No. 2 amounts to change in condition of service during pendency of the said Reference Case. Learned counsel submitted that in the said case, neither promotion was a subject matter nor promotion of any junior to the petitioner was violative of any conditions of service. The promotion to the higher posts is not a condition of service, as the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Moreover, promotion to the Executive cadre grade cannot be a subject of dispute in the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court, which is brought on record and annexed as Annexure- 5 to the writ petition. He has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Civil.. Appeal, Nos. 11567-11573 of 1995, which arose out of the said Division Bench judgment of the High Court (Annexure- 6). He submitted that in view of the said decisions which is exactly on the same issue, the impugned Award of the learned Labour Court is apparently erroneous and liable to be quashed.;