Asstt. Engineer, IGNP vs Azam Ali

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan through Assistant Engineer, I.G.N.P., Division Taranagar and others under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the award dated 25.10.2005 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner whereby the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner passed an award in favor of the respondent workman and issued direction to the petitioner department to grant promotion on the post of Supervisor to the respondent employee w.e.f. 01.08.1985 in the pay-scale of Rs. 640-1180/- of the post of Supervisor w.e.f. the date his junior person Mohan Singh was granted promotion.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly after seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 21.10.2000, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute for granting promotion on the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 01.08.1985 and on the date of raising industrial dispute by the respondent workman he was not even employee of the petitioner department.

The respondent workman was initially appointed on the post of Work Supervisor Grade-II on 13.12.1969 and promoted to the post of Work Supervisor Grade-I w.e.f. 25.7.1980 and later on he sought voluntary retirement while working on the said post w.e.f. 31.10.2000.

After seeking voluntary retirement an industrial dispute for granting promotion without explaining delay was raised but the Judge, Labour Court failed to consider the important ground of delay at the time of adjudicating the reference on merit referred by the appropriate government vide notification dated 04.10.2004, therefore award impugned may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner department vehemently argued that during whole service tenure and till seeking voluntary retirement, the petitioner did not raise any claim for promotion w.e.f. 01.08.1985 on the post of Supervisor and after retirement raised industrial dispute upon which the Judge, Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent workman on the basis of wrong and perverse finding so also ignored the important question of fact that the respondent workman raised dispute after delay of 15 years, that too after seeking voluntary retirement, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman vehemently argued that the petitioner department is not disputing the fact that junior person was granted promotion while ignoring the claim of the petitioner for promotion, therefore, even if the respondent workman raised industrial dispute after delay, the petitioner department cannot raise any ground of delay because department has failed to perform its duty to grant promotion to the respondent workman at par with the junior employee on the post of Supervisor, therefore, the finding arrived at by the Judge, Labour Court does not require any interference.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused entire pleadings of the writ petition as well as the award impugned. The respondent workman is not disputing the fact that he has raised industrial dispute after seeking voluntary retirement from the service. It is also one of the fact that during service tenure, no objection was raised by the respondent workman nor any claim was made for grant of promotion w.e.f. 1.8.1985 and for the first time after seeking voluntary retirement, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute for grant of promotion from retrospective date.

In the opinion of this Court, the Judge, Labour Court has failed to consider import ground of delay in raising the industrial dispute for the simple reason that respondent workman himself has failed to raise any claim before seeking voluntary retirement, more so, with open mind, he took voluntary retirement from the post on which he was working, therefore, respondent workman cannot be permitted to raise any right after seeking voluntary retirement. All the benefits accrued to the respondent workman for the services rendered by him has already been paid after accepting the prayer of the respondent workman for voluntary retirement, therefore, solely on the ground of delay, the award impugned is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the award impugned dated 25.10.2005 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner is hereby quashed and set aside and writ petition is allowed.