Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Employer in relation to the Management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Their Workman represented through Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat - Respondent
W.P. (L) No. 3567 of 2021
Decided On : 06-02-2024
[INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE] - [PROMOTION DISPUTE] - [INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10] - [SUMMARY: The court discussed the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which allows for the reference of industrial disputes to a tribunal. The court emphasized the importance of seniority in promotions and the principle that promotions should not be denied without just cause. The court found that the management's failure to promote the senior workman, Khagan Rajwar, over his junior, Binod Prasad Rajak, was unjustified, leading to the conclusion that the tribunal's award was valid and should be upheld.]
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, which directed the management of South Tisra Colliery to promote Khagan Rajwar, a senior workman, who was superseded by a junior in promotion. The dispute arose from the management's failure to promote Rajwar after an earlier tribunal award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal had correctly determined that Khagan Rajwar was unjustly denied promotion in favor of his junior, Binod Prasad Rajak. The management failed to provide evidence of any adverse remarks against Rajwar that would justify the supersession.
Issues: Whether the management's action in not promoting Khagan Rajwar was fair and justified, and whether the tribunal's award directing promotion was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that promotions should be based on seniority unless there are valid reasons for supersession. The tribunal's findings were upheld as there was no evidence of any misconduct or adverse remarks against the workman.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the tribunal's award that directed the management to promote Khagan Rajwar with all financial and consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issue of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction for setting aside the award dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 30 of 2015 whereby and where under, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 has answered the reference in favour of the workman and directed the petitioner-company to give promotion to the concerned workman as per promotion given to Binod Kumar Rajak with all financial and consequential benefits to him.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the following reference was made by the appropriate government under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1940:-
“Whether the action of the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s BCCL is not giving proper promotion after implementation of award of Ref. No. 201 of 2001 to Shri Khagan Rajwar, Pers. No.00833690, EP Fitter of South Tisra Colliery of M/s BCCL is fair and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
and consequent upon the same, Reference No. 30 of 2015 was registered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad and award was made in respect of the reference on 30.01.2020 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad.
4. It is the case of the respondent-workman through its union that the workman Khagan Rajwar entered in excavation cadre on 22.07.1986 as Greaser Helper and Binod Prasad Rajak entered in the same cadre on 06.12.1986. Thus, the workman Khagan Rajwar was senior to Binod Prasad Rajak in service as well as in Excavation Cadre but Khagan Rajwar was superseded in promotion by Binod Prasad Rajak who was junior to him in all respects. Later on Binod Prasad Rajak was promoted to Grade “D” Excavation vide office order dated 27.04.1993 but made effective from 15.01.1993. The concerned workman Khagan Rajwar was granted E.P. Fitter-Grade “D” Excavation w.e.f. 15.01.1993 in pursuance of the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.II, Dhanbad in Reference No. 201 of 2001 and the same was implemented by the BCCL management in May, 2014. Thereafter, Binod Prasad Rajak was promoted in Fitter E.P. in Excavation ‘A’ whereas Khagan Rajwar was given Grade “B” Excavation by the same office order dated 01.11.2013. So, it is the case of supersession in promotion by junior and as such the senior should also be given promotion from the date in which the junior was promoted.
5. The case of the writ petitioner-Management before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad was that Khagar Rajwar entered in employment in Category I as Greaser Helper (T) on 04.09.1986 and was allowed Category II w.e.f. 23.09.1987. He was also given Grade “E” w.e.f. 21.11.1990. So the claim of the workman is not correct.
6. In support of its case, the sponsoring union has examined one witness being Khagan Rajwar himself as WW-1 besides proving the documents which has been marked Ext. W-1 to W-7. From the side of the Management, one witness was examined being MW-1- Chandra Prakash besides proving the documents which has been marked Ext. M-1 to M-6.
7. The Tribunal considered the deposition of WW-1-Khagan Rajwar that Binod Prasad Rajak was junior to him but still has been given promotion to Grade “A” whereas Khagan Rajwar was promoted to Grade “B” by the same office order dated 01.11.2013 so Khagan Rajwar was superseded in promotion. The Tribunal also considered the testimony of MW-1 and in his cross-examination, within the MW-1 admitted that as per the reference, Binod Prasad Rajak was junior to Khagan Rajwar. The Tribunal also considered that the Management has not brought anything on record showing any adverse remarks/comment against the concerned workman Khagan Rajwar for which he was superseded by his junior Binod Prasad Rajak and by considering materials in the record, the learn
AI
Promotions in employment must adhere to principles of seniority and fairness, and any deviation must be substantiated by valid reasons.
Acquittal in a criminal case impacts subsequent disciplinary proceedings; domestic inquiries must adhere to principles of natural justice to be valid.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
Courts cannot interfere in a matter after passage of a certain length of time.
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 Tribuna....
The Tribunal must conduct a thorough evidentiary analysis to justify decisions concerning wage revisions and additional allowances under the Industrial Disputes Act, ensuring all material evidence is....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
