SAFAI KARAMCHARI UNION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the union for quashing the award dated 13.8.2012 (Annexure P -9) and further issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to promote Mahavir Singh as Peon and Clerk with effect the date his junior Ashok Kumar was redesignated and promoted as Peon with effect from 17.11.1983 in place of 7.3.1984 and Clerk with effect from 20.3.1987 in place of 1.2.1988 along with all consequential benefits. A perusal of the paper -book would go on to show that the petitioner union espoused the claim of one Mahavir regarding the above said dispute and served a demand notice dated 28.6.2007 (Annexure P -7). Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. After examining the issue in detail, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that Ashok Kumar against whom the dispute was raised had not even been arrayed as respondent. Ashok Kumar was promoted as Clerk on 20.3.1987 whereas Mahavir Singh was promoted as Clerk with effect from 1.2.1988 Mahavir Singh was adjusted as Peon on 7.3.1984 whereas Ashok Kumar had been adjusted as Peon prior in time on 17.1.1983. The workman had not raised any issue regarding the seniority even though he was promoted as Clerk with effect from 1.2.1988 and the demand had been raised after a period of about 20 years. Accordingly, it was held that the demand raised by the union was not justified and the reference was decided against the petitioner -union.

(2.) THE said award is not liable to be interfered with in view of the settled principle of service jurisprudence that an employee is well aware of his date of appointment and other promotions which he earns during his service career. In the present case, the dispute is regarding the redesignation and promotion in the years 1983 and 1988. Admittedly, the demand was raised for the first time that too by the Union on 28.6.2007. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : 1976 (1) SLR 53 considered the question of limitation in service matters and held that entertaining such petitions which are patently stale impede the working of the Courts. It was held as under: -

(3.) THUS , keeping in mind the above observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned award of the Labour Court since the stale claim of promotion was sought to be raised after a period of 20 years on behalf of the Union whereas the employee had opted not to challenge the same. Accordingly, finding not merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine.