JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The petitioner who is the management of collieries of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. has challenged the impugned award dated 3rd March, 1994 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 98 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman, namely, Sri Parasnath.
2. It appears that the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred upon them under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication :
“Whether the action of the management of TISCO Ltd. Jamadoba in not promoting S/Shri Parasnath, S.P. Shukla, Ram Chandra Singh and J.N. Tiwary to the post of Sub-Inspector is; justified? if not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”
3. The concerned workman, Sri Parasnath (hereinafter referred to as the concerned workman) was working as Nayak while three other workmen were working as security guards. They were working in the management of TISCO on permanent basis for the last several years ranging from 16 to 21 years. In pursuance of the notification dated 21.8.1988 the concerned workman applied for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector. The concerned workman was asked to appear in the written test. He was also interviewed on the same day. The grievance of the concerned workman was that in spite of securing good marks in the written test, his case was not considered for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector.
4. The case of the management is that the candidates were selected on the basis of their performance in the written test and interview. The concerned workman appeared in the interview but he was not recommended for the post of Sub-Inspector by the Selection Board and he was not appointed as Sub-Inspector.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the entire facts and circumstances and the evidences adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the concerned workman secured highest marks in the written test but he was not selected for the said post. The Tribunal further recorded the following findings :
“MW-4 Sri U.P. Singh was one of the members of the selection committee. He stated that selection of candidates was strictly made in accordance with the circular Ext. M-2. He also stated that 60 out of 100 was qualifying marks. Sri Parasnath according to him, secured only 56 out of 100 and so he was not selected. The witness has denied to have disqualified the concerned workman out of any malice or the prejudice. I have perused Ext. M-3 which is the photocopy of application of Shri Parasnath. He had an occasion to serve in the security department of Tisco for about 17 years, During this period he also served as Nayak for about 6 years. Apart from that he was ex-constable of C.R.P.C, He was never involved in any criminal case nor any disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against him. I feel the appointment committee should have taken a considerate view of the matter in case of Sri Parasnath and specially when he secured highest marks in the written test. I feel on other counts like personality test, experience etc. he deserved some better marking. However, this does not mean that less marking was done out of any grudge or malice just possible the candidate would not have inspired the members very much for he did not turn up in uniform. For these reasons I am to hold Sri Parasnath “was a deserving candidate and he should be provided with the post of Sub-Inspector.”
6. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the Tribunal directed the management to post the concerned workman, Sri Parasnath, as Sub-Inspector within two months from the date of publication of the award.
7. Admittedly the concerned workman secured highest mark in the written test t.e. out of 50 he secured 40 marks but in the interview he was given 4 marks out of 10 marks against personality, 4 marks out of 10 marks for experience and 8 marks out 30 marks against other items. A copy of the selection chart has been annexed by the petitioner as annexure-3 to the writ petition from perusal whereof it appear that in the remarks column the remark given is “did not turn up in uniform”, it is, rather, surprising how the concerned workman was given 4 marks against experience when he was having more experience of service while the candidates having lesser service were also given 4 marks. In my opinion, evaluation of marks given to the concerned workman does not appear to be justified. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the Committee should have taken a considerate view in case of Sri Parasnath specially when he secured highest marks in the written test. But the Tribunal has erred in law in directing the management to post of concerned workman as Sub-Inspector. In other orders, instead of promoting the concerned workman and directing the management to post him as Sub-Inspector, the Tribunal ought to have passed the award directing the Selection Committee for reconsideration of the case of the concerned workman for appointment/promotion to the post of Sub- Inspector.
8. It is well settled that if the Selection Committee commits any error or mistake or if it is found that the decision of the Selection Committee is not proper then the appropriate course would be to refer the matter to the Committee for reconsideration. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranayal Dev and Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1069. In my opinion, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal needs modification to the extent that the Selection Committee of the petitioner shall consider the merit of the concerned workman and take fresh decision in the matter of his promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector.
9. This writ application is, therefore, allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified by directing the Selection Committee of the management to re-consider the merit of the concerned workman, Sri Parasnath for his appointment/promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and take decision within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.