IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches are vital in service matters, and a clean record of service is a prerequisite for the grant of selection scale. The court also emphasized the expectation of approaching the court within a reasonable time, even in the absence of prescribed statutory limitation.

ORDER :

1. By way of present writ petition, challenge is made to award dated 12.08.2021, passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “Tribunal”) in Case No. ITR No. 08/2013 whereby the respondent-workman was held entitle for grant of selection scale of 9, 18, and 27 years of service.

2. The facts of the case, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, are as follows. The respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Driver vide order dated 17.12.1986 and was granted the benefit of selection scale of nine years of service vide order dated 06.04.2004. Thereafter, in 2013, after approximately 11 years of grant of first selection scale, the respondent-workman approached the Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute seeking benefit of selection scale of 9, 18, and 27 years of service from the date of appointment. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 12.08.2021, erroneously allowed the case filed by the respondent-workman without considering the vital aspect of inordinate delay and the deplorable service record of the respondent-workman.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.08.2021, primarily, on the following grounds:

3.1. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-workman cannot claim benefit of selection scale as a matter of right by merely being in service as the same is dependent upon the workman earning nine years of satisfactory service. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of principal seat of this Court in the case of Kailash Dan vs. RSRTC & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3975/2006; decided on 06.11.2008).

3.2. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent-workman had not explained the inordinate delay in filing the industrial dispute. It is contended that the Tribunal has misinterpreted and therefore wrongly relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways: (2014) 10 SCC 301 to arrive at the wrongful conclusion that the workman can approach the Tribunal anytime. It is further contended that though the law of limitation does not apply to reference of industrial dispute, nevertheless the requirement to make the same within a reasonable time still persists. Reliance in this regard is placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment of Bichitrananda Behera vs. State Of Orissa: AIR 2023 SC 5064, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Sadhu Singh: (2022) 5 SCC 634, and Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan Lal: (2013) 14 SCC 543.

3.3. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to consider the past service record of the respondent-workman which clearly revealed that the services of the respondent workman were not satisfactory. It is contended that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner-RSRTC did not provide record before the Tribunal, with regard to the cases which were pending against the respondent-workman, is also perverse as the said record was marked as Exhibit M-2 and was available with the Tribunal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the power of judicial review exercised by the constitutional courts under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. It is contended that the Tribunal had duly considered each and every aspect and after careful consideration of the record along with the rival submissions, passed a well-reasoned speaking order and since there is no perversity in the impugned order, no interference is called for. On merits, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the usage of the words ‘at any