MANAGEMENT OF SAMALPATTI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK SAMALPATTI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT has been stated on behalf of the petitioner Bank that the third respondent was originally employed in the Tamilnadu Consumer Marketing Federation, from 16.4.81 to 30.9.87. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1204, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.8.87, the third respondent was appointed as a sales women in the Fair Price Shop Branch at Antheripatti, under the petitioner management, by the Special Officer of the petitioner Bank, on 1.10.87. On 16.10.87, K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were also appointed as Salesmen under the petitioner Bank. Based on their own merits and qualifications, they were promoted as Clerks. The third respondent had not questioned their promotion at that point of time.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bank had submitted that the award of the Labour Court, dated 5.10.2000, made in I.D.No.212 of 1999, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as it has been passed without considering the fact that K. Manoharan and N. Natesan had been promoted by the petitioner management only after they had challenged their reversion from the promoted post of Clerk to that of salesman before this Court. Further, the third respondent cannot claim her promotion to the post of Clerk in the petitioner Bank as a matter of right. Seniority is not the only aspect to be considered for being promoted to the higher post. Even though there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner management and no counter affidavit had been filed, the first respondent Labour Court ought to have analyzed the facts and circumstances in a proper perspective before coming to its conclusions.