C P AGRAWAL Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals are by the employees of the Steel Authority of India and the grievance of the appellants in each of these appeals is that they were illegally not considered for promotion to the higher grade when their juniors were being promoted. They had approached the Labour Court under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging therein that their service conditions have been altered to their disadvantage while the Reference Case No. 39 of 1973, was pending. The Labour Court passed on Award on 17-1-1991, holding that the application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable and there has been alteration in the conditions of service while a Reference was pending before the Labour Court. Ultimately the Labour Court gave direction in the case of Shri C. P. Agrawal, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 11360 of 1995 to promote him to the post of Construction Supervisor Grade I with effect from 6-6-1971. Additional Divisional Engineer with effect from 21-6-79, Divisional Engineer with effect from 17-2-1983 and Zonal Engineer with effect from 30-6-87, with all consequential benefits. The said Award of the Labour Court in favour of Shri Agrawal has been given effect to and due promotion has been given to him. The Steel Authority of India, however, approached the High Court of Patna against the aforesaid Award of the Labour Court. The Authorities also approached against the similar Award which are the subject matter in other connected appeals. The High Court by judgment dated 8-9-1995, came to hold that the provisions of S. 33-A of the Act will not be attracted since promotion does not fall within the expression conditions of service and any change in the rules of promotion will not tantamount to the alteration in conditions of service during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court. Writ Application filed by the Steel Authority of India having been allowed and the Award of the Labour Court having been set aside the employees approached this Court in these appeals.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants in different appeals reiterated their contention that the High Court committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the promotion cannot be held to be condition of service and alteration in the Rules of Promotion does not tantamount to change in the conditions of service attracting Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, apart from supporting the conclusion of the High Court contended on merits that the case of each of the appellants was duly considered whenever the promotion fell due and on being considered they having been found unsuitable have not been promoted and their juniors were promoted. Accordingly it is contended that there has been no infringement of the appellants constitutional right of being considered enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution and consequently on merits the appeals are liable to be dismissed. When these appeals were heard for considerable length of time on 1-5-1996, this Court passed the following order:-