DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WARDHA Vs. RAMDAYAL SAKHARAMJI TEMBHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport corporation challenges the order dated 7/8-12-1995 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No. 142/1994 whereby Industrial Court has quashed the order of reversion passed against the respondent on 10-2-1993 and directed the petitioner to continue the complainant/respondent as Traffic controller with immediate effect and pay him arrears of salary. The facts giving rise to the controversy in the instant petition are summarised as follows.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as conductor by the petitioner Corporation with effect from 1-11-1970. The next promotional post to which respondent was entitled to be promoted was that of the Traffic Controller, for which according to Clause 39 of the General standing Order 503, it was necessary that the respondent Conductor ought to have passed the departmental examination for being promoted to the post of Traffic Controller. The departmental examination was held in the year 1983 wherein respondent appeared and was declared to have been passed. The departmental examination was, however, challenged by certain Union before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court by order dated 17-3-1989 held that the departmental examination was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and, therefore, examination was liable to be cancelled. It is noteworthy that the respondent came to be promoted on the post of Traffic controller by order dated 26-4-1984 during pendency of cases bearing Nos. 130/1983 and 146/1983 challenging the departmental examination before the Industrial Court, however, subjecting promotion to the decision of the cases mentioned hereinabove. Thus, respondent was promoted on the post of Traffic controller by order dated 26-4-1984 as he had passed the departmental examination which later on came to be declared as cancelled as it was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. The respondent continued, on the post of traffic Controller till decision of the Industrial court dated 17-3-1989 holding that departmental examination was not fair and proper. After decision of the Industrial Court in Case Nos. 130/1983 and 146/1983, the respondent came to be reverted on the post of conductor. It is the case of the petitioner corporation that since several posts of Traffic controller were lying vacant and there were no regular promotions on the posts of Traffic controller, the respondent as well as certain other Conductors were temporarily promoted on the posts of Traffic Controller after decision of the Industrial Court on 17-3-1989. Thus, by an office order, reference number of which is 576/1989, the respondent came to be reverted on the post of Conductor and by very same order was again promoted temporarily on the vacantpost from 4-5-1989. Though respondent was temporarily promoted on the post of Traffic controller again by order dated 3-5-1989 bearing Reference No. 576/1989, the respondent came to be reverted after a lapse of about one year in the year 1990. The respondent challenged the reversion order before the Industrial Court, which forms the subject matter of another proceedings, which is pending before the Industrial Court. Thereafter, by order dated 9-3-1992, the reference number of which is 275/1995, the respondent came to be promoted temporarily on the post of Traffic Controller against the vacancy reserved for backward class candidate. The order, however, mentioned that temporary promotion would be continued till the posts were filled up by regularly promoted candidates or order altering the arrangement was issued. It is not in dispute that order dated 9-3-1992 is the last order by which respondent came to be promoted temporarily on the post of Traffic controller. The respondent came to be reverted by order dated 10-2-1993 on the post of conductor and it is this reversion order, which was challenged by the respondent before the industrial Court in Complainant (ULP) No. 142/ 1994.

(3.) It is necessary to point out at this juncture that the departmental examinations were once again conducted by the petitioner corporation in the year 1990. The respondent appeared in the departmental examination. These departmental examinations were also challenged before the Industrial Court in the year 1990 and results of the departmental examinations were not declared during pendency of the proceedings before the industrial Court. On 9-2-1993, the Industrial court passed an order holding that departmental examinations conducted in the year 1990 were held in a fair and proper manner and results of the departmental examinations could be declared. The results of the departmental examination came to be declared on 9-2-1993. On declaration of results, it was revealed that respondent had failed at the departmental examination. It is the case of the Petitioner corporation that it is because of failure of the respondent at the departmental examination that the order dated 10-2-1996 was passed and he was reverted on the post of Conductor. The case of the petitioner Corporation is that according to provisions of the General Standing order, it was necessary for the Conductor to pass departmental examination for seeking promotion to the next promotional post of traffic Controller and respondent along with several other Conductors was temporarily promoted on the post of Traffic Controller till results of the departmental examination were declared in the year 1993. Since respondent had failed in the departmental examination, the results of which were declared on 9-2-1993, the petitioner Corporation had no option but to revert the respondent on the post of Conductor.