IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.648/1996. Ram Khiladi Vs. Judge Labour Court Bharatpur & Ors. Date of order:- July 9, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.F. Baig for the petitioner. Shri V.P. Mathur for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition has been filed by challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 24/5/1995 by which it has been held that action of the respondents in promoting the petitioners on the post of Mistry w.e.f. 21/3/1971 and 12/12/1971 is illegal and invalid and they are not entitled to any relief. Petitioners were claiming the promotion on the post of Mistry w.e.f. 12/12/1971 on the premise that Wali Mohammad and Abdul Khalid who were junior to them as Mate were wrongly granted promotion earlier than petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioners contended that while date of initial appointment of petitioner Ramkhiladi is 1/3/1968, another petitioner Gayajeet Singh was appointed on 21/11/1968. Wali Mohammad was initially appointed on the post of Mate yet,he was promoted on the post of Mistry vide order dated 21/3/1971. Abdul Khalid was originally appointed as Chowkidar on 1/9/1964 but he was appointed on the post of Mate on 1/3/1988 and was promoted on the post of Mistry on 1/4/1972. It was therefore prayed that the learned Tribunal has wholly erred in law in not appreciating that petitioners’ just claim for promotion was wrongly ignored. Learned counsel submitted that even if Wali Mohammad and Abdul Khalid were recruited at subsequent point of time, whatever benefits they have drawn in the capacity of Mistry should have also been extended to the petitioners. Mere submission with regard to their reversion so made, reversion order is not illegal. Learned counsel for petitioner therefore prayed that the impugned award be set-aside and the reference be answered in favour of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that two persons with whom petitioners were claiming parity and who were junior to the petitioners have already been reverted prior to promotion of the petitioners on 20/12/1978. The very basis on which petitioners raised industrial dispute therefore ceased to exist. Moreover, in regard to dispute of 1971, reference was made belatedly on 22/12/1984. Writ petition therefore be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing the award, I find that an objection was raised by the respondents before the Labour Court regarding non impleadment of Wali Mohammad and Abdul Khalid who according to the petitioners were junior to them. Labour Court reproduced para 2 of the application in which, it was admitted that once, they have reverted, they are not necessary parties. The fact about reversion of Wali Mohammad and Abdul Khalid were noted by the Labour Court in para 8 of the award. In any case, Labour Court was satisfied on the basis of the material on record that at the time when petitioners were promoted on the post of Mistry w.e.f. 20/12/1978, those employees were already stood reverted and therefore grievance of the petitioners did not survive. In those facts, Judge Labour Court rejected claim of the petitioners.
I do not find any illegality or perversity in the award passed by the labour court.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
anil (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.