GENERAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA KARYA NIRATHA PATHRAKARTHARA SANGHA BANGALORE Vs. GENERAL MANAGER PRINTERS MYSORE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, common award passed by the Industrial tribunal at Bangalore in ID Nos. 1 of 1995 and 6 and 7 of 1997 are challenged. The petitioner is a Trade Union of employees working in newspaper industry. They raised a dispute on behalf of one Sri N. Arjuna Deva, K. S. Ramachandra, B. Shankar, N. S. Gopal and P. Seetharam. A common grievance of all these workmen was that they were retired on reaching the age of 58 years long back and they ought to have been superannuated on completion of 60 years of age. The workman Sri Arjuna Deva has an additional grievance to the effect that he was denied promotion which he was otherwise legitimately entitled to on the ground that he was the office-bearer of the Union. Insofar as sri KS. Ramachandra is concerned, his additional grievance is that he has not been paid monetary benefits such as interim relief, educational allowance, promotion as proofreader etc. , in terms of Memorandum of settlement dated 21-4-1994. When the grievance of these workmen were espoused by the Union, it was not accepted by the management. They raised an industrial dispute. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Government referred the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Subject-matter of the industrial disputes are as under: (1) Whether the management of Printers (Mysore) Limited was justified in retiring Sri Arjuna Deva, K. S. Ramachandra and b. Shankar on 30-4-1994, 31-10-1993 and 30-11-1994 respectively on the ground that they have attained the age of 58 years though they could have been continued on the production of medical certificates? (2) Whether the management was justified in not granting promotional benefits to Sri Arjuna Deva in the years 1979, 1983 and 1991 while granting such benefits to his juniors? (3) Whether the management was justified in refusing the benefits of Memorandum of Settlement signed on 21-4-1994 which came into force on 21-8-1994 such as interim relief, educational allowance, promotion to proofreader etc. , to Sri ks. Ramachandra on the ground that he had retired on 31-10-1993?

(2.) PETITIONER filed a claim statement justifying their claim. Respondent has filed a detailed counter traversing the allegations made in the claim statement and setting forth their stand. Parties have adduced evidence both oral and documentary and they submitted the written arguments. Industrial Tribunal, on consideration of the entire material on record, by the impugned award dated 9-12-1998 (Annexure-A) rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) THE material on record discloses that Sri Arjuna Deva joined the respondent in the year 1967 as a Reporter. He has worked continuously for a period of 27 years. His grievance was that he was entitled for promotion as Chief Reporter in the year 1979 but one Sri Raghurama shetty who was junior to him was appointed as the Chief Reporter. There was another vacancy of the Senior Reporter in the year 1980 which was not given to him but his junior by name Sridhar Achar was promoted to the said post. In the year 1981, one P. Ramanna was appointed as Assistant Editor ignoring his name. In the year 1983, he was promoted as Senior Reporter and transferred to Mysore just to promote other juniors and at Mysore he was promised that he would be promoted as special correspondent which is equal to Assistant Editor's post. After seven years at Mysore, he was brought back to Bangalore in the year 1991 but the promised promotion was not given to him whereas others were given promotions as Special Correspondent, Chief Reporter and Assistant Editor who were all juniors to him. When he was aged 57 years, he was promoted as Chief Sub-Editor. He was denied promotion because he was the office-bearer of the Union and he was holding the post of General Secretary and President. If the promotion had been given to him at the relevant time,' he would have retired as Editor and would have been entitled to all the consequential monetary benefits flowing from such promotion which was denied. Though he was physically fit, he was not granted extension upto 60 years whereas persons who were similarly placed, were extended the same benefit and therefore he has been discriminated.