Petitioner challenged promotion of junior employees alleging unfair labour practice and lack of qualifications. Court found both promoted employees were senior per the unchallenged list and the non-graduate respondent met experience criteria under the settlement.
Petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1481 OF 2005
Shri S.R.Pednekar
.. Petitioner
versus
Air Corpn.Employees Coop Bank Ltd & ors..Respts
Mr N.M.Ganguli for Petr
Mr.A.V.Bukhari for Respt no.1
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 19th July 2005.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner in the
complaint before the Industrial Court and before
this Court is that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 who
were juniors to him and did not possess the
necessary qualifications were promoted in
preference to him and that amounts to unfair labour
practice. The petitioner himself had produced
before the Industrial Court the seniority list of
2
the employees and a copy thereof is filed at
Exhibit A to the petition. From the said seniority
list it is seen that the respondent no. 3 was
shown at serial no. 3, respondent on. 4 was shown
at serial no. 7 and petitioner was shown at serial
no.8 in the seniority list. The seniority list was
never challenged by the petitioner. It is thus
clear that both the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were
senior to the petitioner. Therefore grievance of
the petitioner that his juniors were promoted over
him is not correct. Learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1 also invites my attention to para
1 of the cross examination of the petitioner
wherein the petitioner in categorical terms
admitted that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were
senior to him and that they joined the service
before the petitioner.
3. The next grievance of the petitioner is that
the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were not graduates and
therefore were not eligible for promotion. The
respondent no.3 is a graduate and his qualification
is shown to be a graduate in Arts in the seniority
list at Exhibit A. As regards the respondent on.
4 though he was not a graduate he possessed more
3
than 7 years experience. As per the settlement a
person who is graduate with 5 years experience or a
non-graduate with 7 years experience is eligible to
be considered for promotion. Since the respondent
no. 4 possess 7 years experience he was eligible
for promotion. No fault can be found with the
order of the Industrial Court. Petition rejected.
D.G.KARNIK, J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim unfair labour practice as juniors were promoted in preference to him.
Whether respondents were eligible for promotion due to lack of graduation.
Shri S.R.Pednekar
Air Corpn.Employees Coop Bank Ltd
Respondent no.3
Respondent no.4
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court