AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.2.98 passed by the Labour Court, UP., Meerut, respondent No. 3.
The petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court, Meerut u/s 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for getting the benefit of the Government Order No. Ve-Aa. 1-1763/10-39 (M)/89, dated 3.6.89 as he has completed 16 years of service and he is entitled for getting the selection grade.
The employer, respondent, filed his reply stating therein that the workman does not fulfil the requisite conditions of the Government Order dated 3.6.89 and there is a bonafide dispute with regard to the selection grade to be given to the petitioner as he has been awarded an adverse remark, as such he has not been given the benefit of the selection grade.
The Labour Court after considering the case as set up by the workman came to the conclusion that since the petitioner has been awarded adverse remark and he does not fulfil the conditions of the Government Order dated 3.6.89, therefore, he is not entitled for selection grade, so the application filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid Act, is rejected.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.K. Sinha, argued before the Court that Labour Court has committed an error for not giving the benefit of the Government Order dated 3.6.89 to the workman-petitioner and argued that the petitioner has already completed 16 years'' of service, he tried to assail the findings recorded by the Labour Court on this aspect also.
In my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly held that whether the petitioner is entitled for getting the selection grade or not as per conditions of the Government Order dated 3.6.89, is a bona fide dispute with regard to the entitlement of the workman-petitioner for getting the selection grade. Therefore, the application filed b the petitioner u/s 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, is not maintainable.
In view of what has been sated above, this Court refuses to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.