QALIULLA BAIG Vs. INDIAN GOVERNMENT MINT HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issue of a writ to quash 12 (a) of Hyderabad Mint Industrial Workers Promotion Rules, 1965 in so far as it enjoins 75% atteddance as a requisite condition for promotion and to declare the order contained in Memo dated 10-1-1981 rejecting as unfit the petitioner for promotion to Grade I Machinist by misinterpreting the said rule 12 (a) as null and void and to quash the order issued by the 1st respondent promoting the 3rd respondent contained in diary order No. 56 dated 10-1-1981 and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to promote the petitioner with effect from 1-12-1980 as Grade Machinist.

(2.) The averments in support of the writ petition may be briefly stated: The petitioner was appointed as Grade IV Machine man in the I.G. Mint, Hyderabad on 13-8-1956 and promoted as Grade III Mechinist on 1-12-1965. On 3-1-1967 he was promoted as Grade II mechinist and was confirmed in the said grade on 26-11-1975. The 3rd respondent joined in the I. G. Mint, Hyderabad as Mazdoor on 25-2-1961. He was then appointed to grade V. On 1-2-1968 he was promoted to grade IV. On 1-2-1968 he was promoted as Grade III Machinist and he was promoted to grade II on 4-2-1972 and was confirmed in the said grade oa 26-11-1975 The petitioner is senior to 3rd respondent in grade III as well as in grade II In the seniority list issued by the 1st respondent on 1-2-1,980 the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 77 and the name of the 3rd respondent is at serial No. 19. The Hyderabad Mint (Industrial) Workers) Promotion Rules, 1965 govern the promotion of Industrial workers in I. G. Mint Hyderabad and these rules came into force on 1-2-1965. Rule 6 concerning with the recruitment and promotion of tradesmen provides the promotion from grade III to grade II & grade II to grade I will be considered on the bosis of seniority subjrct to the rejection of unfits. Rule 12 provides that a workman should be considered unfit for promotion if during the preceding period of 12 months his attendance was not satisfactory ie. below 75% of the average attendance of workman or he had received a warning for his misconduct or for refusal to learn the work of the next higher cotegory. The Departmental promotion committee meets to consider and recommend the employees to fill up the posts. The composition of promotion committee is not in accordance withrule 10 as the work Manager instead of Dy. Works Manager acted as chairman. Further, the committee should include a representative of the Union of Employees from the I.G. Mint Workers Union. Instead of the same the General Secretary T.K.S. which is a separate union is included in the committee against the above said rule. The petitioner is eligible to be promoted as grade I Machanist and in the said grade he reahed the maximum scale of pay about 7 years back. Further, the petitioner is senior to the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent was promoted to grade I and the petitioner was rejected as unfit under Rule 12. The condition of 75% of the average attendance is vague, arbitrary and capricious and rule 12 (a) is contrary to Aaticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and illegal. The promotion of the 3rd respondent ignoring the seniority of the petitioner is bad and illegal.

(3.) The General Manager, India Government Mint, Hyderabad filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as Grade IV Machineman on 13-8-1956 and promoted to grade III on 1-12-1965 and further he was promoted to grade II on 3-8-1967 and confirmed on 26.-11-1975 and thus he has been working as grade II since 3-8-1967. The 3rd respondent was appointed as Mazdoor on 25-2-1961 and he was promoted as Asst. Class V with effect from 13-8-1966 and thereafter he was promoted to grade II on 1-2-1968 and subsquently he was confirmed in the post of gradt III on 5-12-1971. Thereafter he was promoted to grade II on 4-2-72 and confirmed in the same grade on 26-11-1975. The workmen of the India Government Mint, Hyderabad are classified as Tradesmen and non-tradesmen. The 1st respondent issued Diary Orders in the matter of promotions confirmations on the rdcommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee. All the workmen of this Mint are governed by the India Government Mint, Hyderabad Standing orders which was certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders 1946) by the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) and came into force on 23-12-1966. AH the appointments and promotions of the workmen are made in accordance with Hyderabad Mint (Industrial Workmen) Promotion Rules, 1965 issued by the Master of Mint, vide D.O. No: 1/255/65/4704 dt. 25-11-1965. Rule 6 of the Hyderabad Mint Promotion Rules 1965 deals with recruitment and promotion of tradesmen. According to sub-rule (6) of rule 6 the seniority of all tradesmen working in different departments will be drawn, trade-wise & grade-wise & all the promotions fromGrade III toGradeII & GradeII toGradel will be considered on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. According to rulel 2 of the rules a workman should be considered unfit for promotion if during the preceding period of 12 months his attendance is not satisfactory is below 75% of average attendence of workman or if he received a warning for his misconduct or for refusal to learn the work of the next higher category. The composition of committee constituted for considering promotions from time to time including the promotion of the 3rd respondent is legal and valid. The petitioner was appointed in grade II with effect from 3-8-1967 which is a feeder post to consider the promotion to the next higher posts ie. Grade I. The petitioner was having only 195 days of attendance during the preceding 12 months from December, 1979 to November, 1980 from the date of departmental promotion committee, which met during the month of December 1980 to consider the promotion of Industrial Establishment and in view of the same the petitioner was not recomended for promotion. Likewise the next junior to the petitioner has also not fulfilled the required attendance of 75%. The 3rd respondent who possessed qualified attendance of 75% during the preceding 12 months from December, 1979 to November, 1980 was recommended by the said committee for promotion to grade I. Therfore, the 3rd respondent who was seniormost among the remaining workmen in grade II was recommended by the said committee and finally promoted to grade I with effect from 1-12-80 vide D.O. No. 56 dt. 10-1-81. Under rale 12 (a) of the rules a workman in order to become eligible for promotion should have 75%of average attendance as per calculation given below which is uniformally applied in all cases of promotion covered by the said rules.