The court ruled that the promotion denial to the employee was legally justified due to misinterpretation of restructuring policies under railway circulars, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's order.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.A.K. Hussain, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. At the outset it is to be noted that the present writ petition was so instituted with Subhash Banik as the sole respondent. During the pendency of the present proceeding, unfortunately the sole respondent passed away on 27-01-2020. Accordingly, his legal heirs, i.e. his wife and the daughter, were substituted as respondents in place of the original respondent Subhash Banik by this Court vide order dated 07-11-2022.

3. The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the award dated 20-03-2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati in reference case No. 12/2008.

4. The original sole respondent Subhash Banik being aggrieved by denial to him of his due promotion to the next higher grade of Senior Technician/ Master Craftsman, along with similarly situated persons had raised grievances before the N.F. Railway authorities, i.e. the petitioner herein. On not getting any response from the railway authorities, the matter came to be referred to the Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati for conciliation. The conciliation having failed because of non-appearance of the railway authorities, a reference came to be made in the matter vide order dated 30-09-2008 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India. The schedule of reference being relevant is extracted here-in-below:

The Schedule “Whether the action of the management of N.F. Railway by denying promotion to Sri Subhash Banik, Technician Gr.I (Turner) and five others as per annexure, is legal and justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?”

5. The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the evidences coming on record, vide award dated 20-03-2013 proceeded to decide the reference against the management, i.e. the N.R. Railway authorities and directed for promotion of the original respondent, herein, to the post of Senior Technician/ Master Craftsman, w.e.f. 01-01-2006 with all consequential benefits of his pay and allowances including the pensionary benefits. Being aggrieved the management, i.e. the N.F. Railway authorities, as petitioner, has instituted the present proceeding.

6. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, herein, who was initially appointed as a ‘Khalasi’ on 12-12-1965, riding the ladder of promotion came to be promoted as Turner Grade-I on 28-10-1997 under the Chief Mechanical Engineer, N.R. Railway, Maligaon and was deployed at Wagon Repairing Shop at Pandu. He submits that the Wagon Repairing Shop was closed down in the year 2004 and the original sole respondent along with other staff deployed in the said Wagon Repairing Shop were deployed in the Carriage Wagon Department of the N.R. Railway authorities by creating supernumerary posts and the establishment of these staff were maintained in the Mechanical Section of the Chief Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway. Mr. Goswami submits that the grievance of the original sole respondent was to the effect that he was due for promotion to the post of Senior Technician/ Master Craftsman in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000/- - Rs. 8000/- against a post projected to be lying vacant since December, 2005 under the Sr. CDO, Guwahati on superannuation of one S.N. Das, Senior Technician, w.e.f. 31-12-2005. Mr. Goswami submits that basing on the policy in place, eligible candidates from Machinist Grade-I and Tuner Grade-I (Technical Grade) authorised the same scale of pay, i.e. Rs. 4500/- -