(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award dated 27.8.94 (Annexure 12), by which the claim of the respondent-workman for promotion with effect from 2.7.75 on the post of Electrician has been allowed.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-workman had joined the petitioner under the Work-charged Employees (including PWD (B & R), Garden. Irrigation (including Water Supply, Forest Department and Aayurved Department) Service Rules, 1964 (for short, "the Rules, 1964"). Workman claimed to have worked with effect from 2.7.75 as an Electrician though the present petitioner had given him the promotion with effect from 9.5.77 while two other persons, viz., Bhupendra Singh and Madan Singh, had been offered the post of Electricians by direct appointment in 1975-1976. Respondent-workman raised the dispute at a belated stage and the Appropriate Government made a reference : whether his promotion with effect from 9.5.77 is justified or whether he ought to have been given promotion w.e.f. 2.7.75 ? After considering the evidence adduced before it, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondent-workman and directed that he may be granted promotion with effect from 2.7.75 instead of 9.5.77. Hence this petition.
(3.) The submission raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after availing the benefit of promotion for a period of twelve years, the respondent workman ought not have raised the industrial dispute in 1987 and even if the reference was made. the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim only being a stale claim. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Surhind Co-operative Marketing Society, (1999) 6 SCC 82 , such a plea is not maintainable for the reason that if the Legislature has not fixed any period of limitation and a claim is raised at a belated stage, the Labour Court may deprive the workman of back wages etc. but the claim cannot be rejected merely being stale.