NITYA NAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial and Labour Court, Union Territory Chandigarh in an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'I.D. Act.'). This case has a little checkered history. On 10.03.1975, the petitioner was appointed as Peon. Though he was eligible for promotion for the post of Ferro Printer but some Juniors to him were promoted which necessitated the petitioner to serve upon the respondents a demand notice dated 19.1.1988 seeking promotion to the post of Ferro Printer. The said reference was allowed vide order dated 18.6.1992 and it was ordered that the petitioner is entitled to the promotion to the post of Ferro Printer. The said order was assailed by the Management which was partly set aside by the a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.1995. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order which was modified by this Court vide order dated 09.02.1996. Since the Management did not pay the salary for the period, the petitioner was entitled for the same and as a result thereof, a COCP was filed and vide order dated 12.09.2000 (Annexure P-3), the same was allowed. As per the order, ibid, the petitioner was held entitled to recover the amount from the respondent i.e. the difference of his pay as Peon and that of Ferro Printer from the date when Juniors to him were promoted. The operative part of the order is extracted herein below:

(2.) The said order was assailed by the Management before this Court. However, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2001 (Annexure P-4). Since order dated 12.09.2000 was not complied with which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court through Contempt Petition No. 1548 of 2001. The said contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2003. The said order reads thus:-

(3.) From the aforesaid order, it is clear that the petitioner was given liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law, in case the relief to the petitioner had not been given.