JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner No. 1 is a statutory corporation established under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the officers of the Corporation. Hereinafter they will be collectively referred to as "the petitioners". They are aggrieved by the order dated 17-8-1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Nasik in Complaint (ULP) No. 460 of 1989 filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 28 read with section 30 and Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act). The complaint of the respondent was concerning denial of promotion to him from 1973 onwards at every stage. He alleged the charge of unfair labour practices of favouritism and discrimination regardless of merits. He also alleged the unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act complaining that the petitioners did not implement the reservation policy and promotions were not given strictly in accordance with the roster points. The respondents prayed for a declaration that the petitioners engaged in the aforesaid unfair labour practices and sought affirmative orders to desist from engaging in the aforesaid unfair labour practice.

2. The petitioners appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint by filing their written statement denying all the charges of unfair labour practices. The petitioners raised two substantial preliminary points in respect of limitation and also the maintainability of the complaint, as the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently he was not an employee under section 3(5) of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act to be competent to maintain a complaint under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. According to the petitioners the duties performed by the respondent were of managerial and administrative nature and that he did not fall within the main part of the definition of workman and that he was squarely covered by the exception given in the definition. Admittedly his salary exceeded Rs. 1600/- p.m. According to the petitioners, the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable. On the merits of the promotions the petitioners have justified the promotions given by them at every stage. It was contended that at every stage the respondent was considered by the departmental promotion committee and a decision was taken on the basis of the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee. According to the petitioners, there was no unfair labour practice and no victimization or discrimination shown to any one including the respondent. The petitioners further submitted that all the promotions were on the basis of the rules governing the promotions in the establishment. The petitioners have set out various other contentions in their written statement which are not being reproduced by me as it will not be relevant. The Industrial Court by the impugned judgment and order has accepted the contentions of the respondent and held that the petitioners had engaged in an unfair labour practice and directed the petitioners to extend promotional benefits to the respondent in all the categories i.e. Senior Clerk, Assistant, Assistant Area Manager as that of another employee Shri S.L. Taru who was enjoying the said benefits from the date given to him. The learned member of the Industrial Court had also directed the petitioners to compute the monetary benefits for the entire period and pay the same to the respondent.

3. At the outset I am of the view that the complaint suffered from inordinate delay and laches particularly in the matter of promotions which were sought by the respondent in the complaint. It appears from the complaint that he made a grievance that from the year 1973 onwards at every stage he was denied legitimate promotions. In the year 1974

Click Here to Read the rest of this document