K RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. K LALITHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant brought this writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.7237 of 1989 whereunder the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order fixing inter se seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent-petitioner dated 8-3-1993 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, has been quashed.

(2.) The petitioner-1st respondent and the appellant had been working in A.P. Dairy Development Corporation (for short 'APDDC')- The appellant was initially appointed in the year 1971 as contingent worker and later he was appointed as LDC in the year 1975. The 1st respondent was working since 1973 and in the year 1978 he was appointed as Typist. In the year 1978 the Feeder Balancing Dairy, Vadlamudi, now known as Sangam Dairy, which was under the control of APDDC was separated from the Corporation and entrusted to Guntur District Milk Producers Co-operative Union. In response to an advertisement made by the Sangam Dairy calling for applications for recruitment, the appellant was appointed as LDC (Junior Assistant) on 1-8-1978, whereas the 1st respondent was appointed as Senior Assistant on 16-9-1978. Subsequent to the appointment of the 1st respondent, the appellant was selected as Senior Assistant on 27-9-1978. Aggrieved by his selection and appointment subsequent to 1st respondent as Senior Assistant, the appellant filed a representation on 29-9-78 before the General Manager, Sangam Dairy, stating that at the time of joining as LDC on 1-8-1978 he requested for his appointment as Senior Assistant on the ground that he had sufficient experience and qualifications to be appointed as such, but however, he had been appointed only as LDC resulting in his becoming junior to the 1st respondent, though he was appointed in the Corporation earlier to 1st respondent. He, therefore, requested for protecting his service and seniority and that his seniority should be refixed at the appropriate place. Accordingly the General Manager passed the order dt.27-9-1978 stating that the seniority of the appellant should be refixed and changed w.e.f. 1-8-1978 as UDC. Thereafter, his seniority was accordingly refixed and his place was shown at Sl.No.l in the seniority list dated 15-9-81 and the 1st respondent was shown at Sl. No.3. It is the case of the 1st respondent-petitioner that in the seniority list dt. 8-3-1983, considering his representation, the 1st respondent was shown at Sl.No.1 and the appellant was shown at Sl. No.2. "The appellant raised industrial dispute aggrieved by the refixation of the seniority putting the petitioner-1st respondent above him, on the ground that the seniority fixed could not be changed without any order to that effect by the concerned authority. The said dispute was registered as I.D.No.133/84 before the 1st respondent-Labour Court. The Labour Court in its award dt.1-3-1989, after considering the entire evidence on record, held that the seniority list dated 8-3-1983 was not valid in as much as seniority of the appellant had been fixed on 15-9-1981 appointing the appellant as UDC w.e.f. 1-8-1978 and his seniority cannot therefore be disturbed in the absence of any order to that effect. Questioning the said award, the writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent-petitioner. The learned single Judge held that the finding of the Labour Court was illegal and that the representation of the 1st respondent-petitioner was properly considered and decided by the management according to the policy decision prevailing prior to the enforcement of the rules.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the General Manager 1of the Sangam Dairy, considering his representation, has passed the order dt.27-9-1978 re-changing the seniority of the appellant as UDC w.e.f. 1-8-1978 and accordingly seniority list has been prepared in February, 1981. The said order has not been questioned by the respondent No.1, and therefore has become final. The said seniority could not be changed by the management merely on the ground of policy decision thereby making the 1st respondent senior to him. The said action of the management is therefore illegal. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent reiterated his arguments that have been advanced in the writ petition, viz., that the petition R-1 had been appointed as UDC on 16-9-1978 and on that date the appellant was only a LDC having been appointed as such on 1-8-1978; and that the appellant had been appointed as UDC only on 27-9-1978 and is therefore junior to him in the Sangam Dairy. He further contends that the date of initial appointment of the appellant in the Corporation will have no effect on the seniority that is to be fixed between them in the service of Sangam Dairy.