BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Abovementioned both the writ petitions are being disposed of together as the question ith regard to denial of promotion to respondent No. 5 by the petitioner?s company and the reference of industrial disputes raised by respondents No. 4 and 5 having been made by the State Government is under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner is a company having its plant at Ranipur, Haridwar. Hari Shankar Jauhari (respondent No. 5) was appointed in the petitioner?s factory with effect from 05.06.1965 as Lower Division Clerk and was further promoted as Assistant (Accounts) in May 1975. His next promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Grade III (Non supervisory) or Assistant Office Superintendent (Supervisory) was due in the year 1982. It is stated that the petitioner-company laid down certain guidelines for promotion vide letter dated 13th June 1979 and as per the guidelines for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Grade-I had to undergo prescribed selection method. Respondent No. 5 appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee but was not found fit. Thereafter he did not appear before the Departmental Promotion Committee held for promotion to the next higher grade from the year 1984 to 1994. He raised an industrial dispute in the year 1982 but withdrew the same on 18.04.1984. Thereafter whenever respondent No. 5 submitted his representation/ application for promotion, he was duly informed that unless he was found fit for promotion by promotional committee he could not be promoted. Respondent No. 5 made representation on 18.01.1985 for his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Grade III but was informed that he could not be promoted, as Departmental Promotion Committee did not find him fit for promotion.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Union through its General Secretary filed an application before the Conciliation Officer on 30.03.1993 submitting that respondent No. 5 Hari Shankar Jauhari was entitled to promotion as Senior Assistant Grade III with effect from 25.06.1982 and as Senior Assistant Grade II on 25.06.1987 and he was further entitled to be promoted as Senior Assistant Grade I on 25.06.1992 under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. An application for condonation of delay along with the abovementioned application was also filed wherein it has been submitted that last letter/representation by the petitioner regarding the promotion of respondent No. 5 was communicated on 23rd September 1992. It was pleaded that though there was no delay in making the claim, but even if there was any delay in raising the dispute it has been satisfactorily explained. Thus the delay, if any, may be condoned. The petitioner company filed its objection stating therein that the application moved by respondent No. 4 was highly belated and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the delay, therefore, the application is not maintainable. The Labour Enforcement and Conciliation Officer (respondent No. 3) vide order-dated 08.06.1994 condoned the delay in raising the dispute. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing No. 2933 of 2001. It transpires that during the pendency of the said writ petition the conciliation proceedings concluded and consequent upon the failure report, the State Government referred the following dispute vide order dated 27th July 2007: