LAWS(PAT)-1986-10-2

EMPLOYERS MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL Vs. WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY

Decided On October 12, 1986
Employers Management Of Central Appellant
V/S
Workmen Represented By Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure -9, the award given by respondent No. 2 by which respondent No. 2 has held that the workman (Jatadhar Lall), represented by respondent No. I, was entitled to be confirmed on completion of his probationary period of one year from the date of his appointment and also entitled to promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from November, 1964. Respondent No. 1 also held that Lai was entitled to attendant benefits and all consequences arising out of such promotion including promotion to higher post.

(2.) By Annexure -1 respondent No. 1 offered appointment to Lall to the post of accountant. One of the conditions of the offer was that Lall would be on probation for a period of one year which period might be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the appointing authority and on satisfactory completion of probation, Lall would be given contract for a period of three years. He joined on 27 -2 -1962 by letter dated 4 -7 -1972 the management wrote Lall that in continuance of annexure 1 it was informed that during the period of probation Lall was required to pass the prescribed departmental examination as per the rules of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. Lall protested to that condition. He, however, applied for appearing at the departmental examination and in fact he appeared at the examination held in February, 1964, March 1967, March 1971 and October 1971, Lall however, could not pass the said examination. He, in November, 1971 passed Part II but failed in Part I. As Lall did not pass the departmental examination, he was not confirmed. Meanwhile, persons junior to him were promoted. He thereafter filed a suit challenging the action of the management. The suit was dismissed, copy of judgment is annexure -2. Lall filed an appeal against. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The judgment is annexure B to the counter affidavit. The management filed an appeal in this Court that it was held that the suit was not maintainable. The judgment of this Court is annexure -3 to the writ petition.

(3.) Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 1 and the dispute was referred to respondent No. 2. The Reference was whether the action of the management in not confirming promoting Lall on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examination for the post of accountant as prescribed in Company's Circular dated 18th April, 1961 was justified. On the basis of the materials on record, respondent No. 2 answered the reference in favour of Lall and granted reliefs as noticed hereinabove.