PUNJAB STATE TUBEWELL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. PUNJAB STATE TUBEWELL CORPORATION CLASS IV EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUNJAB State Tubewell Corporation Class -IV Employees Union (for short, the Union) served a demand notice on the management alleging therein that one Shri Nitya Nand who was working as a peon had been ignored in the matter of promotion to the post of Ferro Printer while persons junior to him and with lesser qualifications had been promoted. The names of four persons bad been mentioned who were allegedly junior to Nitya Nand and had been promoted. What was demanded from the management was that Shri Nitya Nand should be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Ferro Printer from the date when his juniors were promoted. Another demand that was made was that certain Class -IV employees who fulfilled the qualifications for promotion to the post of Clerks had been wrongly superseded by their juniors and that all those seniors who fulfilled the qualifications be deemed to have been promoted as Clerks from the date when their juniors were so promoted. This demand notice was referred to the Labour Court -respondent for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) THE management contested both the demands and it was admitted that Nitya Nand was working as a peon. It was denied that he was wrongly ignored for promotion to the post of Ferro Printer. It was pleaded that there was no channel of promotion from the post of peon to that of Ferro Printer in the bye laws of the Corporation which governed the service conditions of its employees. The demand raised by the Union was considered and for this reason it was found unjustified and the same was rejected. As regards the promotion to the post of Clerks from amongst class -IV employees, the case of the management was that there were no bye -laws regulating such promotions and that 10 per cent quota had been fixed for such promotions which already stood exhausted.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned award. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the parties that several persons had been promoted as Ferro Printers from the post of a peon and that two persons, namely, Balbir Singh and Sada Nand who had been so promoted were junior to Nitya Nand whose case had been espoused by the Union. In my opinion, the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the promotion of these two persons as they were not before it. It was open to the Labour Court to have impleaded them as parties in exercise of its powers under sub -section (3) of Section 16 of the Act and then decide the matter but it did not to so. In the absence of those persons their promotions could not be set aside. This part of the award setting aside their promotion cannot, therefore, be sustained. The Labour Court had declared that Nitya Nand shall be deemed to have been promoted from the day when his juniors were promoted as Ferro Printers. It cannot be denied that the management in the instant case is a government company and is a 'State' for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution and it cannot, therefore, violate the rights guaranteed to Nitya Nand under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has also been found by the Labour Court that persons junior to Nitya Nand had been promoted as Ferro Printers. The direction given by the Labour Court that he too will be deemed to have been promoted with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted is unexceptionable and just and fair in the circumstances. This part of the direction cannot, therefore, be interfered with.