ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PLANT, MOHALI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference to the Industrial Tribunal was on the issue of an adjudication relating to two distinct classes namely of one "workman" (Smt. Amarjit Kaur Walia), who claimed to be entitled to be promoted as a Clerk w.e.f. 21.01.1984 with consequential benefits and the other class that represented the persons, who as Heavy Tanker Drivers claimed as entitled to a higher scale of pay, consequent on the revision of pay scales who held pay at par with other classes of workers at the stage of pre-revised scales but whose scales fell below those other classes after pay revision.

(2.) The reference was answered in favour of the workman whereby Smt. Amarjit Kaur Walia was found entitled to the grade of a Clerk at Rs. 400-600/- w.e.f. 21.01.1984. The four drivers, for whom Union was espousing the cause, were also found entitled to the scale of pay at Rs. 510-800/- from 01.01.1978, when it was given to the Junior Scale Stenographers in the revised pay scales with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Sh. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management contends that as regards Smt. Amarjit Kaur Walia, she was a Dairy Helper-cum- Cleaner having been appointed on 22.01.1982 and later regularized on 27.09.1982. She held the post as a Clerk from 06.04.1983 on ad hoc basis and on 31.01.1984, she was reverted to her parent cadre as Dairy Helper-cum- Cleaner. The management sought to fill up the posts of Clerk when vacancies arose, by advertising for applications from 'in service' candidates to which Smt. Amarjit Kaur Walia did not apply and when the selection process was complete and some persons who were previously working as Dairy Helpers-cum- Cleaners had been appointed as Clerks, Smt. Amarjit Kaur Walia made a demand that she was also entitled to be promoted to the higher post from the day when the others were promoted on the posts as Clerks. According to learned counsel for the management, a person that worked only on ad hoc basis was not entitled as a matter of right to the promotion post and she cannot canvas for being promoted only by virtue of the fact that some other persons, who had worked as Dairy Helpers-cum-Cleaners had been promoted. He made pointed reference to the fact that she had not even applied to the post of Clerk when advertisement had been issued and that she was not entitled to make such a demand. The demand notice itself came after nearly a period of 5 years and there was no justification for making the claim.