SINGHBHUM Vs. WORKMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by Award dated 16.07.2012 in Reference Case No.251 of 2001, the Management of Bhelatand Colliery of M/s. TISCO has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are summerized thus;

(3.) MR . Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondentworkman was appointed on the post of Assistant Gomosta on 01.01.1983 and he was performing the duty of 'Gomosta' w.e.f. 01.04.1983, he has not brought on record any evidence to establish that duties performed by him as 'Gomosta' could not have been performed by him while working as Assistant Gomosta. The respondentworkman in the garb of plea of regularisation has, in fact, claimed promotion, which cannot be granted. In support of this plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Schedule3 of the Industrial Disputes Act and submits that such a claim cannot be decided by the Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted that reference vide, order dated 27.11.2001 itself was invalid inasmuch as, it was not a case of regularisation of the respondentworkman and therefore, award dated 16.07.2012 warrants interference by this Court. It is further submitted that since the respondentworkman was granted GradeC under the Service Linked Upgradation (S.L.U.) w.e.f. 01.04.1993, he could not have claimed further benefit of promotion. It is thus, submitted that the direction to grant benefit of difference in wages and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1983 is an error in law committed by the Industrial Tribunal.