This writ petition challenging a Labour Court award regarding seniority and promotion benefits of a workman was dismissed. The Court upheld the award, holding that promotions should be based on the date of joining rather than the date of passing accounts training, relying on a precedent.
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.
O.J.C. No.331 of 1996
11.05.2016 The petitioner, in this writ petition, assails the award dated 26.9.1994 passed by the
Presiding Officer Labour Court, Jeypore under Annexure-9 holding that the workman, namely, Sri
Lingaraj Patra, Clerk-B (opposite party no.1 herein) is entitled to all service benefits in t
he promotional post of U.D. Clerk with effect from 18.08.1980 with that of his junior.
2. The opposite party no.1 was initially engaged as NMR in erstwhile Orissa State Electri
city Board (OSEB), South Zone, Jeypore. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.06.1969 under Annexu
re-1, he was absorbed in the work-charge establishment as Bill Clerk/Cashier. Vide order dated
31.12.1971(Annexure-2) of the Superintending Engineer Electrical Circle, Berhampur, the
opposite party No.1 was brought to the regular establishment as Bill Clerk with effect from 22
.07.1969. Subsequently, on 03.06.1971, the OSEB issued order categorizing employees under 21 c
ategories on the basis of the recommendation of the Central Wage Board. As such, Lower Divisio
n Clerk, Bill Clerk, Bill Assistant, Ledger Clerk Junior Progress Recorder were categorized as
Clerk B category. They were categorized as such vide order of the OSEB dated 21.01.1973 (Anne
xure-3). Accordingly, opposite party No.1 was categorized as Clerk-B in the Skill-B category a
nd allowed to enjoy the similar benefit as admissible to the Lower Division Clerks. In consequ
ence thereof, while fixing the seniority of Bill Clerk, Bill Assistant under Clerk-B category,
the seniority of opposite party No.1 was reckoned with effect from 21.01.1973 and his seni
ority was accordingly maintained in the seniority list vide office order dated 28.01.1973.
3. While the matter stood thus, one Ullash Chandra Gouda was directly appointed as Junior
Clerk under the regular establishment of OSEB on 24.11.1969. Taking into consideration the ci
rcular dated 28.01.1973 issued under Annexure-4 by OSEB, the Lower Division Clerks who were co
ntinuing before 21.01.1973 under a separate cadre were considered senior to others who had ent
ered into the cadre on 21.01.1973. Thus, the opposite party No.1 was treated to be junior to s
aid Ullash Chandra Gouda. Accordingly, seniority list was prepared as per Annexure-5, wherein,
the name of Sri Gouda appeared at Serial No.33 and name of opposite party No.1 fou
nd place at Serial No.115. No objection was filed to such seniority list published under Annex
ure-5 by opposite party No.1. Subsequently, another seniority list was published in the year 1
982, wherein seniority of opposite party No.1 found place at Serial No.60. The said revision w
as made due to promotion of some employees to Clerk-A (U.D. Clerk) category owing to passing o
f the accounts examination. The next promotion from Clerk-B to the cadre of Clerk-A was consid
ered taking into account the settlement dated 12.10.1972 to the effect that a person must be M
atriculate and must have three years experience in Clerk-B cadre to be considered for promotio
n. For passing of accounts examination by Lower Division Clerks, circular was essential to be
considered for promotion to higher post and other consequential benefits. Sri Gouda had acqui
red/passed accounts examination on 31.03.1971, whereas the opposite party No.1 passed the Acco
unts Examination in the year 1981. Thus, Sri Gouda was given promotion to the post of Clerk-A
category with effect from 19.08.1980, whereas the opposite party No.1 was not considered for t
he same, though he was appointed much earlier to said Sri Gouda. Thus, assailing the discrimin
ation meted out to opposite party No.1, he approached the Conciliation Officer. However, the c
onciliation failure report was submitted to the Government. Accordingly, the appropriate Gover
nment referred the matter to the Labour Court, Jeypore for adjudication of the following sched
ule:-
1. Whether Sri Lingaraj Patra, Clerk B under the O.S.E.B. Ganjam North Electrical Division, B
erhampur is entitled to his seniority with effect from 22.07.1969 in accordance with office or
der No. 10544 dt.31.12.1971? It so what are the details?
2. Whether Sri Lingaraj Patra, clerk B of OSEB Ganjam North Electrical Division, Berhampur is
entitled to promotion to the post of U.D.C. from the date i.e. 18.08.1980. Sri Ullash Chandrr
a Gouda, Clerk B promoted to the said post? If so what should be the details.
4. The petitioners as 1st party management and opposite party No.1 as 2nd party
workman filed their respective written statements. Considering the case and taking into consi
deration the materials available on record, learned Labour Court held that the opposite party
No.1 is entitled to all service benefits in the promotional post of U.D. Clerk (Clerk-A catego
ry) with effect from 18.08.1980, when Sri Gouda was promoted to the said post. The said award
is under challenge in this writ petition.
5. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C
.A. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1.
6. Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.1 at the threshold assa
ils the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners on the self-sa
me set up facts had filed OJC No. 7641 of 1995 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide or
der dated 23.11.1995. The present writ petition is similar to OJC No.7641 of 1995 in verbatim.
Thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Further, he contends that the impugned a
ward does not suffer from any material irregularity or infraction of law. Thus, this Court sho
uld not interfere with the same.
7. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand contends tha
t, in course of hearing of OJC No. 7641 of 1995, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a m
emo stating enter alia to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one and he w
as permitted to do so vide order of this Court dated 23.11.1995. Accordingly, the present writ
petition was filed and the same is maintainable.
He further contends that though the seniority list was published in 1974 showi
ng name of Sri Gouda at Serial No.33 and the opposite party No.1 at Serial No.115, the opposit
e party No.1 had never raised any objection to the same. Further, though the said list was mod
ified in the year 1982 consequent upon promotion of some senior employees by acquiring account
s training, the position of opposite party No.1 was raised to Serial No.60. However, he remain
ed junior to Sri Gouda. The promotion to the next higher grade (Clerk-A) was consi
dered in the year 1980 and Sri Gouda promoted to the cadre of Clerk-A with effect from 19.08.1
980, as he had acquired/passed accounts examination on 31.03.1971. The opposite party No.1 has
passed the said examination in the year 1981 and thus his case could not be taken into consid
eration for promotion. This aspect was not considered by the learned Labour Court while adjudi
cating the reference. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be struck down.
8. Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand, supporting the impugned aw
ard made his detailed submission. He drew attention of this Court to the findings arrived at
by the Labour Court while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2.
9. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the learned Labour Court had
taken into consideration the office order No.1688 dated 21.1.1973 (Annexure-3) and order date
d 28.01.1977 (Annexure-6). Annexure-3 relates to classification of cadre of Lower Division Cle
rk, Bill Clerk, and Ledger Clerk etc., who were designated as Clerk-B in Skill-B category. It
reveals that all the Clerks-B of Skill-B category will form one cadre. Annexure-6, on the othe
r hand, disclosed as follows:-
(1) All the Clerks-B, whether Matriculates or non-Matriculates have to be considered under one
cadre with effect from 21.01.1973.
(2) The Lower Division Clerks (Clerk-B) as were existing before 21.01.1973 under a separate c
adre should be considered to other who have entered into the cadre on 21.03.1973.
(3) The other Clerks-B who have entered into the cadre on 21.01.1973 should be placed below t
he L.D. Clerks under item (2) above in order of their respective dates of appointments to the
posts equivalent to Clerk-B. When more than one have the same date of appointment, seniority i
s to be fixed according to the rank in order of merit as per the selection list of the former
post and not on the basis of qualification as stipulated in order No.4224 dated 27.03.1974.
(4) Those appointed after 21.01.1973 should be placed below the persons under items (2) and (3
).
Thus, on a close reading of the contents of order under Annexures- 3 & 6, it reveals t
hat the employees brought from work charge establishment to regular establishment and the empl
oyees who were directly recruited in the regular establishment were treated equally. The oppos
ite party No.1 was brought over to the regular establishment with effect from 22.07.1976 for a
ll purposes. There is no dispute to the fact that Sri Gouda was appointed directly in the post
of Lower Division Clerk on 24.11.1969 and joined the said post on 15.12.1969. Thus, he is def
initely junior to opposite party No.1.
Further, learned Tribunal held that the criteria for promotion as has been fixed by t
he OSEB in the officer order dated 30.06.1971 to the effect that one should pass accounts exam
ination to become eligible for promotion to the post of Clerk-A cannot be given effect to. He
came to such conclusion basing upon a decision dated 05.07.1974 passed by this Court in OJC N
o. 104 of 1974 (Panchunath Sahu vs. Superintending Engineer, Bhubaneswar), wherein similar que
stion cropped up for consideration. In the said case, this Court categorically held that crite
ria for promotion to the post of U.D. Clerk (Clerk-A), seniority according to the date of join
ing shall be considered notwithstanding the date of passing the accounts training test for the
said post. In view of the same, we do not find any reason to differ with the view of the lear
ned Tribunal and interfere with the impugned award. Thus, the submissions of Mr. Panda do not
inspire us to take a different view as decided in OJC No. 104 of 1974.
10. In that view of the matter we do not find any infirmity in the impugned award and refu
se to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
S. Panda, J.
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner-respondent is entitled to seniority with effect from 22.07.1969.
Whether the petitioner-respondent is entitled to promotion to the post of U.D.C. from 18.08.1980 despite passing the accounts examination later than the senior employee.
Whether the impugned award of the Labour Court passes any material irregularity or infraction of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
OJC No. 7641 of 1995Referred¶6
Panchunath Sahu vs. Superintending Engineer, BhubaneswarApplied¶13
OJC No. 104 of 1974 (Panchunath Sahu vs. Superintending Engineer, Bhubaneswar)
O.J.C. No.331 of 1996
Sri Lingaraj Patra
S. Panda
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court