DURYODHAN PARIDA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the award dated 19.9.1992 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No.66 of 1989 answering the reference against the workman -petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Artisan 'C under the management -opposite party namely Talcher Thermal Power Station, Talcher on 5.12.1972. His scale of pay was fixed at Rs.110 -195. He appeared in the trade of Fitter during 1981 and obtained the National Certificate from Government of India and had also passed All India Trade Test held in 1970 from I.T.I., Cuttack. He was also a qualified Boiler Welder. While working as Artisan 'C the post was upgraded to Artisan 'B and he was provided enhanced scale of pay. In the year 1974 he claimed upgradation from Artisan 'B to ArtisanA and accordingly an agreement was entered between the parties before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for such upgradation. However, the same was not given effect to and the management -opposite party issued circular to conduct trade test for promotion to various categories and the workmen in the Artisan 'C grade were allowed to appear in the trade test instead of upgrading the post from Artisan 'C to Artisan 'A. Some workmen working as Artisan 'C had in fact been upgraded to Artisan 'A superseding the workmen working as Artisan 'B. While the matter stood thus a set of charges were issued against the petitioner for his alleged misconduct and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The charges could not be proved against the petitioner but the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer who participated in the enquiry had a bias against the petitioner, as a result of which he was not allowed upgradation from Artisan 'C to Artisan 'A on the ground that he failed to pass trade test. The objection to such conduct of the management was also taken up by the Union but the management did not listen to the claim and some of the employees junior to the petitioner were upgraded from Artisan 'C to Artisan 'A. In view of the above, a dispute was raised and ultimately the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference is "Whether the action of the management of Talcher Thermal Power Station, Talcher in passing over the claim of Sri Duryodhan Parida for promotion to the post of Artisan 'A is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief is Sri Parida entitled -. The opposite party management filed its written statement before the Labour Court stating therein that the demand of the petitioner is not justified. According to the management -opposite party the petitioner had to requisite experience or length of service to qualify for the revised scale and the settlement dated 15.10.1974 and 19.10.1974 do not help the petitioner for raising such claim. The petitioner became Artisan 'B w.e.f. 27.11.1975 and therefore the settlement dated 19.10.1974 has no application to the case of the petitioner. There was an industrial dispute earlier by the workmen of T.T.P.S. and the procedure adopted for promotion was upheld in an Award dated 30.9.1998 in the industrial dispute case. In the award the action of the management in holding the trade test was found to be in order and was upheld. Further case of the management -opposite party is that on 19.4.95 selection to the post of Artisan 'A(Welder) for the machine shop and fabrication unit was held and the then Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer participated in the Selection process. The selection process was fair and bona fide and the petitioner did not qualify. It is also the case of the management -opposite party that the workmen like Batakrushna Samal, Artatrana Parida and Kapila Behera who are alleged to be the junior of the petitioner did not belong to the machine shop and fabrication unit. The aforesaid three workmen belong to the plant mechanical maintenance unit and both have distinct and separate promotional prospect. In view of the above they cannot be called as juniors to the petitioner since they do not belong to the same unit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workmen from the same category as that of the petitioner had been upgraded from Artisan 'C to Artisan 'A directly by passing the claim of the petitioner in Artisan 'B grade. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the three workmen as mentioned in the written statement of the management belong to the same category as that of the petitioner and were also working in the same unit and therefore the stand taken in the written statement is not acceptable. It was also contended in the alternative that accepting for the sake of argument that the petitioner and the aforesaid three workmen belong to two different Departments, promotion procedure should be same for all Departments and if in the case of one Department Artisan 'C is upgraded to Artisan 'A there cannot be any discriminal in respect of another Department. In this respect the petitioner also relied upon evidence of the witnesses and some documents exhibited before the Labour Court.