The court clarified that conditions for time-bound promotions differ from regular promotions, emphasizing entitlement based on service completion without mandatory interview requirements.

JUDGMENT :

(M. K. Thakker, J.)

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Naik waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Article 14, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs:-

“A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to Writ of certiorari or any other writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Recovery Application No.90 of 2018 and be pleased to allow the recovery application No.90 of 2018 filed by the petitioner and be pleased to direct the respondent No.1-company to pay an amount of Rs. 20,15,758/- which is claimed in the recovery application with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Recovery Application No.90 of 2018, at Annexure-A to this petition.

(C) Cost of this petition, be provided to the petitioner.

(D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts arising for the consideration under this petition is that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-company and was appointed as Assistant Technician and worked with the respondent-company for more than 40 years and thereafter, he retired as a Senior Technical Assistant (Electrical) on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.08.2017.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier on 28.05.1983, the petitioner was illegally terminated from the services and therefore, dispute was raised before the Industrial Court being Reference LCV No. 357 of 1983 in which the award was passed in the favour of the petitioner by granting the benefit of reinstatement alongwith 50% back wages. Petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court being Special Civil Application No.2964 of 1988 and 5483 of 1993 wherein, the settlement arrived between the parties and the respondent-company agreed to pay monetary benefits and other consequential benefits to the petitioner which were wrongly withheld by the respondent-company. The aforesaid petition was disposed of on 02.07.1993.

4.1. There was further settlement which arrived between the Union of the respondent No.1-company and the respondent on 21.07.1997 wherein, the company agreed to release the various benefits and promotion to the employees to the company. As per the settlement, the petitioner has claimed that he is entitled for the benefit of promotion in Grade IIC/D on completion of seven years of service and therefore, the representations were made by the present petitioner to the respondent No.1- company. It is further alleged by the present petitioner that first time-bound upgraded promotion was released of Grade IIIA vide order dated 14.09.2001 with effect from 13.09.2001 and therefore, petitioner would be entitled for upgraded promotion to Grade IIC/D on completion of seven years from 13.09.2001 which would be completed on 13.09.2008. The reply was given by the respondent No.1-company on 17.10.2008 stating that on completion of seven years an employee is eligible for time-bound promotion. However, considering the service record and performance appraisal report of last three years which are required to be satisfactory and no adverse record if found against the employee, only then the promotion can be granted. As it is stated in the aforesaid communication that petitioner does not fulfill the said requirement and therefore, petitioner is not eligible for time bound promotion. Further representations were made by the petitioner stating that as per the settlement which arrived between the Union and the respondent-company on 21.07.1997, no such condition was imposed. Ho