SHYAM LAL Vs. BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Writ Petition institued by Sham Lal and four others to challange an award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal dated 21st July, 1971, whereby orders promoting the five petitioners to the post of Head Mechanic in the service of the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, Delhi Municipal Corporation have been declared to be invalid.

(2.) . The first three petitioners. Sham Lal, Rameshwar Das and Balkishan were promoted to the post of Head Mechanic by an order dated 27th April, 1968 and the other petitioners, Mohd. Tahir and Brahm Datt were promoted by a similar order dated 2nd July, 1968. The first three petitioners were formerly Fitters Class I and the other two, were Fitters class II in the service of the Undertaking An industrial dispute was raised by the workmen of the Undertaking to challenge the promotion of the petitioners on the ground that promotion had to be made strictly in order of seniority from the cadre of 1st Class fitters. Thus according to the workmen, petitioners 1,2 and 3 who were promoted by the order dated 27th April, 1968 could not have been promoted because they were. not senior-most and petitioners 4 and S could not have been promoted because they were not even First Class fitters.

(3.) . By its a Ward dated 21st July, 1971 the Additional Industrial Tribunal held that .the promotion of the five petitioners was invalid. Accordidg to the Tribunal although there were no promotion rules, evidence led on behalf of the workmen showed that promotions had to be made strictly in the order of seniority. The promotions were therefore, held to be not valid. Certain documents which were produced by the Management were held to be not proved and were therefore not considered. To these proceedings the petitioners were not parlies because they were not represented by a Union, nor were they represented in their individual capacity. They have now instituted this Writ Petition to challenge the award declaring their promotions to be illegal. Three contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, it is contended that in the absence of promotion rules, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the promotion order and had no jurisdiction in this respect. Secondly, it is contended that the documents filed by the Undertaking in the course of the proceedings could cot have been disregarded on the ground that they were not proved in the particular circumstances of this case. Lastly, it is contended that no notice was given to the petitioners concerning the proceedings. Hence, the award is challenged as being not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.