Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 357 (JHR)

B. N. Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2004-04-02

M.Y.EQBAL

body2004
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta and A.K. Das learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the seniority list dated 26.7.1995 issued by Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Sudamdih Mines of BCCL, Dhanbad and further for a direction to the respondents to prepare two separate seniority list, one for the Cadre post namely for the petitioners and other seniority list for Ex-Cadre post namely for the respondents. 3. Petitioners case is that they are matriculate and have obtained the III training from recognized Training Institution in different trades namely. Fitter, Welder, Turner, Operator etc. They were initially appointed in between 1967 to 1975 in the mines cadre. The petitioners performed their duties as Fitter-cum-Operator, Fitter-cum-Welder and Fitter-cum-Turner respectively. In 1978 an internal advertisement was published by the BCCL inviting application for different posts including the post of Fitter-cum-Operator, Fitter-cum- Welder, Instrument Mechanic etc, Respondent Nos. 6 to 41 applied for the post and were selected for the post of Fitter-cum-Welder, Fitter-cum- Electrician in the Grade D in the scale of Rs. 378-614/-. Petitioners further case is that respondent Nos. 6 to 41 were appointed in 1979-81 and all were placed in Grade D and all the facilities applicable to the technical and supervisory Grade D were granted to them. It is alleged that though in the advertisement required qualification was mentioned as Matriculate including three years experience but even such persons who have passed the III training and having no practical experience were appointed to the post of Fitter-cum-Operator, Welder-cum- Operator i.e, in the Grade D post. 4. Petitioners said to have raised objection before the General Manager, Sudamdih Mines of BCCL, stating specifically that they being eligible for the post in question denied the opportunity for promotion to Grade D. The grievance of the petitioners were considered objectively and the matter was discussed and ultimately a settlement was made on 20.10.1981 whereby the management agreed that no discrimination between two sets of Operators Category-V and Grade D will be made. Petitioners said to have moved the concerned authority to consider their case for due promotion retrospectively on the basis of their respective seniority. But no decision was taken rather in 1994 the management reopened the matter of promotion through DPC. Petitioners said to have moved the concerned authority to consider their case for due promotion retrospectively on the basis of their respective seniority. But no decision was taken rather in 1994 the management reopened the matter of promotion through DPC. The petitioner raised grievance before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad in 1992 in respect of denial of promotion and the matter was discussed in conciliation proceeding and it was decided to settle the issue within two months. Petitioners case is that respondent Nos. 6 to 41 are juniors to the petitioners but by virtue of their notional seniority with effect from 1.3.1985 for promotion they have become senior to the petitioners. It is contended that in 1990 notional promotion with effect from 1.3.1985 was given only to those who were promoted from Category (sic) to Category VI and no benefit was given to them who belongs to Grade C. On the contrary the management issued seniority list dated 26.7.1995 in which all the cadre and the Ex-Cadre employee have been placed in same seniority list and the name of respondent Nos. 6 to 41 are mentioned above the petitioners. Consequently all the petitioners have been made junior to respondents Nos. 6 to 41. 5. Respondent BCCL filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that provisional seniority list published on 26.7.1995 is the true seniority list in terms of appointment and placement of different persons in Sudamdih Washery as Fitter-cum-Operator. Since the issue of absorption of the Ex-Cadre employees was resolved amicably and the management has agreed to consider their seniority in terms of office order No. 8031, dated 16.4.1991 which forms part of the settlement before the Honble High Court, the seniority list cannot be prepared separately for same set of people, having similar jobs and are now placed in the same grade w.e.f. 20.4.1991. 6. Respondents further case is that the seniority list is binding on the employees as it has been prepared after due care and caution and further promotion will be based on this seniority list as per vacancy position, staffing pattern, DPC and Cadre scheme. It is contended that fitters are placed in category IV and Fitter-cum-Operator are placed in category V i.e. one category higher than the fitter. Respondents further case is that respondent Nos. It is contended that fitters are placed in category IV and Fitter-cum-Operator are placed in category V i.e. one category higher than the fitter. Respondents further case is that respondent Nos. 6 to 41 were selected and were placed in Grade D as there was no cadre scheme at the relevant time i.e. 1979-80 and therefore they cannot be treated as Ex-Cadre post. It is contended that respondent Nos. 6 to 41 might have joined their service after the petitioners but were placed on higher post because of their higher qualification and experience on selection basis. Initial appointment of the petitioners was either Trainee Apprentice and/or Mazdoor Category-I whereas respondent Nos. 6 to 41 were placed in monthly cadre Grade D which is much higher than Category I and therefore petitioners cannot claim any comparison with the said respondents. It is stated that in 1991 dispute was resolved by and between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 6 to 41 and thereafter respondent Nos. 6 to 41 were promoted to Grade C. 7. From the pleadings of the parties the facts emerge are that petitioners were initially appointed either as Trainee Apprentice of General Mazdoor Category-I in between 1967 and 1975, whereas respondent Nos. 6 to 41 were appointed during the period 1979-81 in Monthly Cadre Grade D which is admittedly much higher than Category-I. Respondent Nos. 6 to 4-1 were recruited in Technical and Supervisory Grade D. At the relevant time when the respondents were appointed, the petitioners never challenged their appointment in Technical and Supervisory Grade D at any point of time. In other words respondent Nos. 6 to 41 were placed in higher post because of their qualification and experience and the appointment was made on selection basis. It appears that a dispute was raised by the petitioners for their promotion and several discussions were held by and between the petitioners and the Management and the matter ultimately referred to the Deputy CIC (C), Dhanbad. But subsequently petitioner-Union withdrew reference and the matter was left to the Management for sorting the issue of seniority and the Management published provisional seniority list against (sic). Petitioners filed objection to the provisional seniority list which was ultimately finalised and final seniority list was published on 26.7.1995. It has not been disputed by the petitioners that they were given promotion to the higher post with effect from 20.4.1991. Petitioners filed objection to the provisional seniority list which was ultimately finalised and final seniority list was published on 26.7.1995. It has not been disputed by the petitioners that they were given promotion to the higher post with effect from 20.4.1991. The respondents, as noticed above, were appointed not on Ex-Cadre post rather they were appointed on higher post than that of the petitioners and they were placed above the petitioners on the basis of their appointment and also on the basis of final settlement by and between the management and the respondents pursuant to order passed by Calcutta High Court in CO No. 10717 (W) of 1988. 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the sequence of the event. I am prima facie of the opinion that when seniority list was finally published after considering objection of the petitioners, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Moreover, disputes raised by the petitioners are purely industrial dispute for which petitioners could have availed the forum provided in the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.