The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to statutory Rules governing promotions and the necessity of impleading necessary parties in labor dispute cases.

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award dated 27.8.94 (Annexure 12), by which the claim of the respondent-workman for promotion with effect from 2.7.75 on the post of Electrician has been allowed.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-workman had joined the petitioner under the Work-charged Employees (including PWD (B & R), Garden. Irrigation (including Water Supply, Forest Department and Aayurved Department) Service Rules, 1964 (for short, "the Rules, 1964"). Workman claimed to have worked with effect from 2.7.75 as an Electrician though the present petitioner had given him the promotion with effect from 9.5.77 while two other persons, viz., Bhupendra Singh and Madan Singh, had been offered the post of Electricians by direct appointment in 1975-1976. Respondent-workman raised the dispute at a belated stage and the Appropriate Government made a reference : whether his promotion with effect from 9.5.77 is justified or whether he ought to have been given promotion w.e.f. 2.7.75 ? After considering the evidence adduced before it, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondent-workman and directed that he may be granted promotion with effect from 2.7.75 instead of 9.5.77. Hence this petition.

3. The submission raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after availing the benefit of promotion for a period of twelve years, the respondent workman ought not have raised the industrial dispute in 1987 and even if the reference was made. the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim only being a stale claim. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Surhind Co-operative Marketing Society, (1999) 6 SCC 82 , such a plea is not maintainable for the reason that if the Legislature has not fixed any period of limitation and a claim is raised at a belated stage, the Labour Court may deprive the workman of back wages etc. but the claim cannot be rejected merely being stale.

4. It has further been contended that the services of the respondent-workman involved in this case were governed by the Rules, 1964. Rule 4 provides for mode of appointment and promotion and Clause (3) of the said rule specifically provides that the appointment shall be made by the rules framed by the Head of the Department. Rule 7 provides for maintaining seniority list of the employees of the same category. However, the posts have to be filled-up in accordance with the procedure and quota prescribed in the Schedule. As per the Schedule annexed to the said Rules, 25% vacancies on the post of Electricians are to be filled up by direct recruitment while 75% posts are to be filled-up by promotion. Therefore, the rule itself stipulates for quota-rota rule. The Labour Court has decided the whole case on the basis of the letter dated 2.7.75 written by the Assistant Engineer, by which the workman was directed to work on a particular date as an Electrician and that had been the sheet-anchor of his argument. While adjudicating upon the claim of the respondent-workman, the Labour Court failed to take note of the statutory Rules. If the rule provides for filling up the vacancies by promotion and direct appointment separately, it was the duty of the Labour Court to find out first whether the vacancies, which occurred on 2.7.75, had fallen in the quota of direct recruitment or in promotion quota. Without determining so, the Labour Court was not warranted to proceed further in the matter and in absence of any specific finding of fact that the post was to be filled up by promotion, the award could not have been made in favour of the respondent-workman.

5. In the case of N. S. Giri v. City Corporation of Mangalore, JT 1999 (6) SC 538 , the Apex Court has held that if an award has been made in contravention of the statutory rules, it is to be treated as void and it cannot be given effect to. In the instant case, as the Labour Court has not first determined whether the