SIDDARAM RAMCHANDRA SHINDE Vs. CHIRF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition impugns the Judgement and order dated 16-1-1996 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune thereby dismissing Comp(ULP)No. 104/1990 filed by the Petitioner and consequently his prayer for promotion to the post of Assistant Operator and Operator from the date Shri Otari was granted same promotions respectively, was rejected.

(2.) It is not disputed that the Petitioner joined the Respondent Board which is a State Government undertaking, as a junior operator on 9-11-1970 and he was confirmed in the year 1971. Mr.M.M.Otari came to be appointed as a junior operator on 7-7-1972 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Operator on 10-1-1979. The Petitioner was promoted for the first time to the post of Assistant Operator w.e.f. 5-1-1980 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of operator from 1-1-1984. Six years later he approached the Industrial Court and filed Complaint(ULP) No. 104/1990 under Section 28(1) read with Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (the Act for short). He claimed in the said complaint that he was required to be treated as senior and promoted to the post of Assistant Operator prior to 10-1-1979 when Mr. Otari was appointed to the said post. He further stated that he belongs to "Vimukta Jatis" (kaikadi) and Mr. Otari and another operator Mr.V.K.Ramoshi were promoted in the reserved category (OBC/VJ) and if he belongs to the same category, he deserved to be promoted earlier than Mr. Otari.

(3.) The Board filed written statement before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint both on its maintainability as well as on merits. On the issue of maintainability it submitted that the petitioner was transferred at his request to Pune w.e.f. 26-5-1989 and he had given consent for giving up his seniority for this transfer. Consequently there was no cause of action for him to file a complaint. Secondly, the promotion of Mr. Otari was granted on 8-12-1986 and same was sought to be re-opened 18 years later and,therefore, the complaint was highly time barred. It was also claimed that Mr. Otari as well as Mr. Ramoshi were not included as the necessary respondents and if the petitioner s claim was to be accepted for promotion to the post of Assistant Operator prior to 8-12-1986, one of these two operators could be affected.