The Labour Court has limited jurisdiction and cannot interfere with promotion and supersession decisions of the management unless it is alleged that they were made on account of mala fides or victimization.

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Labour Court Award dated 29.9.88 (Annexure 6), by which the claim of the respondent-workman had been allowed and the present petitioner has been directed to promote him on the post of Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as `L.D.C.') with effect 28.4.84 with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the `Appropriate Government' made a reference of an industrial dispute to the Labour Court on 21.7.86 as to whether the respondent-workman, a Class IV employee, was entitled to be promoted as L.D.C. with effect from 20.3.84. is Before the Labour Court, in the claim petition, respondent-workman had stated that he was appointed as Class IV employee on 28.4.79 and possessed the qualification of Secondary and was the senior most Class IV employee. However, Mr. Kalyan Singh, respondent No. 3, a Class IV employee junior to him as had been appointed with effect from 6.3.80, was promoted as L.D.C. vide or dated 20.3.84 and, thus, he was entitled to be promoted as L.D.C. from the said date.

3. The salient features and the admitted facts of the case remain that the respondent-workman, in his claim petition, had agitated the issue that the respondent No. 3 was promoted ignoring his claim and it was arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice and, thus, the order dated 20.3.84, by which respondent No. 3 had been promoted, was liable to be quashed. Further mala fide was shown that after promoting respondent No. 3 as L.D.C., he was transferred to another office in Jaipur vide order dated 15.10.85 and relief of promotion with effect from 20.3.84 as L.D.C. was claimed. Respondent No. 3 Mr. Kalyan Singh, who had been impleaded as party before the Labour Court, filed reply before the Labour Court stating that in the petitioner society, the Rules tad not been framed . and till framing of the Rules, the Society had adopted the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for shod, `the Rules, 1951'). He had not been promoted rather appointed directly as he possessed the qualification of Higher Secondary and was very good in Hindi typing. He further contended that the issue whether his appointment/promotion vide order dated 20.3.84 was good and valid was out-side the scope of reference, therefore, the same cannot be decided by the Labour Court. More so, he produced the order dated 20.3.84, which indicated that he was appointed purely for a period of three months and the tenure was likely to be extended after assessing his work and in case his services were not found to be satisfactory, it would be liable to be terminated. Respondent-workman mentioned in his affidavit filed on 5.5.88 that rules for selection or promotion had not been framed by the Society, rather they had adopted the procedure which was applicable in the case of State Government employees. In his cross-examination, he made it clear that he was not aware whether typing was necessary for the post of L.D.C. or but in case of promotion from Class IV employee to L.D.C., no such requirement was not mandatory. He was also not aware whether respondent No. 3 Kalyan Singh was appointed/promoted after assessing his merit along with him and other employees like Mr. Bhanwar Singh Handa. He also categorically stated that he was not claiming any relief against Kalyan Singh, rather he wanted promotion for himself. (Annexure 4).

4. On behalf of the petitioner society, the Manager Mr. Madan Lal Sharma filed an affidavit on 13.9.98 stating that the work of the respondent-workman had never been found satisfactory and respondent No. 3 Kalyan Singh was not promoted but was appointed on the post of L.D.C. as he had good knowledge of typing and possessed the qualification of Higher Secondary. Respondent-workman was not knowing the typing nor was he eligible for promotion. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that certain percentage is reserved f