MANAGEMENT OF ASHOK HOTEL A UNIT IF INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. GOVT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 12.2.1996 whereby the Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner to give benefits of promotion from cadre to cadre and other consequential benefits to respondents S/Shri R.S.Gupta, S.S.Upadhyay, Subhash Chander and M.P.Gupta as given to Mr. O.P.Mathur.

(2.) Briefly, facts are that Mr. O.P.Mathur, Mr. C.M.Dilwaria and respondents were working in petitioner's hotel. Mr. C.M.Dilwaria was promoted to the post of clerk grade II w.e.f. 1.9.1964 and clerk grade I on 1.6.1966. Mr. O.P.Mathur, who was senior to Mr. C.M.Dilwaria raised an industrial dispute in year 1983 i.e. after 18 years that he was entitled to promotion to the post of clerk grade II from the date Mr.C.M.Dilwaira was promoted since he was senior to Mr. C.M.Dilwaria. The dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal vide an award dated 15.12.1987 directed that since Mr. O.P.Mathur was senior to Mr. C.M.Dilwaria, he should also be promoted to clerk grade II on the same date on which Mr. C.M.Dilwaria was promoted. Although all the four aforesaid respondents were senior to Mr. O.P.Mathur and Mr. C.M.Dilwaria, none of them raised dispute along with Mr. O.P.Mathur that they should also be promoted to the post of clerk grade II on the same date on which Mr. C.M.Dilwaria was promoted. After the award in favour of Mr. O.P.Mathur was passed, petitioner implemented the award and Mr. O.P.Mathur was given promotion as directed. It is a fact that the tribunal did not make the respondents as party to the dispute though the seniority and promotion of the respondents was going to be affected by the order of Tribunal. Neither the respondents themselves made application to be included as a party. After the award in favour of Mr. O.P.Mathur was implemented above four respondents raised an industrial dispute about their non-promotion along with Mr. O.P.Mathur and a reference was made by the government to the following effect:

(3.) Even in this reference the other persons, who were senior to these four respondents were not made as a party neither they were heard. The Industrial Tribunal considering the fact that the four respondents were senior to Mr. O.P.Mathur, gave direction that all the four respondents be promoted on the same date when Mr. O.P.Mathur was promoted from cadre to cadre.