RAMESH CHANDRA DIXIT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a permanent weaver in the service of the respondent No. 2. He also worked as substitute Line Mistry as and when the occasion arose between 1974 to 1984. In 1982 a post of permanent Line Mistry fell vacant and the petitioner made a claim for the same but his claim was rejected. It is alleged in para 6 of the petition that in January, 1984 the respondent No. 2 appointed one Munna in the aforesaid vacancy ignoring the lawful claim of the petitioner. Subsequently permanent vacancies of Line Mistry arose in Line 4,5,8, and 9 and again the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Line Mistry was ignored and persons junior to him were appointed as Line Mistry while the petitioner was not promoted. Aggrieved the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to respondent No. 1 which by the impugned award dated July 2, 1987 (Annexure 1 to the petition) decided in favour of respondent No. 2.

(2.) This petition has been filed against the impugned award dated July 2, 1987 as also the order April 16, 1988 (Annexure 5 to the petition) passed on the review application. Since in my opinion there is no provision for review of an award of the Labour Court in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act hence the review application was clearly not maintainable. However since it appears that the petitioner was wrongly advised to file a review I condone the delay in filing this writ petition and I am proceeding to hear the writ petition against the award on merits.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned award dated July 2, 1987 shows that the Industrial Tribunal completely mis-directed itself in the matter. The claim of the petitioner was that since his juniors have been promoted he should also be promoted as Line Mistry. In para 5 of the award it has been observed that promotion is an exclusively management function. However, in my opinion, in the matter of promotion the management cannot act arbitrarily and it cannot overlook the claim of the senior persons and promote Juniors alone. Admittedly the petitioner is senior to the persons promoted, hence the petitioner is also entitled to be promoted as Line Mistry. The petitioner has also worked as substitute Line Mistry between 1974 to 1984 and although this fact alone may not entitle him to promotion but it certainly adds to his claim for promotion particularly when his juniors have also been promoted. In para 7 of the impugned award it has been mentioned that there is a medical certificate which shows that the petitioner was suffering from anaemia with swelling in his legs. In my opinion this alone cannot dis-entitle the petitioner for promotion as it is not a very serious disease and can be easily cured by treatment. In my opinion the action of the management was wholly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Line Mistry and back wages.