CHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the writ petitioner. THE Challenge is to an award dated 22.09.1999 in I.D.No,50 of 1998, on the file of the first respondent. THE second respondent workmen raised the industrial dispute before the first respondent stating that when he was working as Junior Assistant (Administration) in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer/South Sub-Division, Dindigul, he was proceeded with departmentally, which conclude in a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, by order dated 25.06.1994.

(2.) THE period of punishment commenced on 01.04.1995 and in the meanwhile a panel for promotion to the post of Assistant (Administration) was drawn by the board in the proceedings dated 14.02.1995, in which the second respondent name did not find place. THE second respondent is said to have made an appeal to the Chairman of the board on 24.04.1995, against the non inclusion of his name in the promotion panel, dated 20.07.1995, which was not considered, since he was undergoing punishment. THEreafter, the second respondent approached the conciliation officer for resolving the dispute, since the conciliation failed an industrial dispute was raised before the first respondent contending that there was no crucial date fixed for considering promotion to various categories of post and such procedure was not followed while drawing the panel from 1987 to 1995. Further, the second respondent placed reliance upon a memo of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 26.06.1992, in memo no.12146/P192-1 and contended that he should have been considered for promotion.

(3.) PER contra, Mrs. R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the Labour Court after appreciating, the facts and circumstances of the case correctly came to conclusion that the second respondent is entitled for promotion. Further, it was contended that in view of the memorandum dated 26.06.1992, there is no bar for considering the promotion of the second respondent pending disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel further relied on the decision of this Court in W.A.No.1358/1988 dated 10.08.1992, in support of her contention and prayed that the award of the Labour Court does not call for any interference.