M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta and A.K. Das learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONERS have prayed for quashing the seniority list dated 26.7.1995 issued by Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Sudamdih Mines of BCCL, Dhanbad and further for a direction to the respondents to prepare two separate seniority list, one for the Cadre post namely for the petitioners and other seniority list for Ex -Cadre post namely for the respondents. Petitioners ' case is that they are matriculate and have obtained the III training from recognized Training Institution in different trades namely. Fitter, Welder, Turner, Operator etc. They were initially appointed in between 1967 to 1975 in the mines cadre. The petitioners performed their duties as Fitter -cum -Operator, Fitter -cum -Welder and Fitter -cum -Turner respectively. In 1978 an internal advertisement was published by the BCCL inviting application for different posts including the post of Fitter -cum -Operator, Fitter -cum -Welder, Instrument Mechanic etc, Respondent Nos. 6 to 41 applied for the post and were selected for the post of Fitter -cum -Welder, Fitter -cum - Electrician in the Grade 'D ' in the scale of Rs. 378 -614/ -. Petitioners ' further case is that respondent Nos. 6 to 41 were appointed in 1979 -81 and all were placed in Grade 'D ' and all the facilities applicable to the technical and supervisory Grade 'D ' were granted to them. It is alleged that though in the advertisement required qualification was mentioned as Matriculate including three years experience but even such persons who have passed the III training and having no practical experience were appointed to the post of Fitter -cum -Operator, Welder -cum -Operator i.e, in the Grade 'D ' post.
(3.) PETITIONERS ' said to have raised objection before the General Manager, Sudamdih Mines of BCCL, stating specifically that they being eligible for the post in question denied the opportunity for promotion to Grade 'D '. The grievance of the petitioners were considered objectively and the matter was discussed and ultimately a settlement was made on 20.10.1981 whereby the management agreed that no discrimination between two sets of Operators Category -V and Grade 'D ' will be made. Petitioners said to have moved the concerned authority to consider their case for due promotion retrospectively on the basis of their respective seniority. But no decision was taken rather in 1994 the management reopened the matter of promotion through DPC. The petitioner raised grievance before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad in 1992 in respect of denial of promotion and the matter was discussed in conciliation proceeding and it was decided to settle the issue within two months. Petitioners case is that respondent Nos. 6 to 41 are juniors to the petitioners but by virtue of their notional seniority with effect from 1.3.1985 for promotion they have become senior to the petitioners. It is contended that in 1990 notional promotion with effect from 1.3.1985 was given only to those who were promoted from Category (sic) to Category VI and no benefit was given to them who belongs to Grade 'C '. On the contrary the management issued seniority list dated 26.7.1995 in which all the cadre and the Ex -Cadre employee have been placed in same seniority list and the name of respondent Nos. 6 to 41 are mentioned above the petitioners. Consequently all the petitioners have been made junior to respondents Nos. 6 to 41.;