A. H. SAIKIA, J.— Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, N.F. Railway appearing for the official respondents. Also heard Dr. M. Pathak, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 2. This writ petition is directed against the award and order dated 23.7.2002, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 16(C)/2001, challenging the legality and correctness of the findings therein answering the reference in favour of the Respondent No. 2, who was declared to be entitled to have the seniority that was refused to him by the petitioner. 3. The brief facts that could be gathered on a conjoint reading of the pleadings exchanged by and between the contesting parties are that initially the Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Tele Peon in Grade-D service on 11.1.1968 and posted at Guwahati. In the year 1978, he was promoted to the post of Ticket Collector in Grade-C service. The next promotional post in Grade-C itself was Travelling Ticket Examiner (for short, 'TTE') from Ticket Collector. When 34 posts of TTE had fallen vacant, railway authority called option from the Ticket Collectors including the Respondent No. 2 for their appearance in the suitability test for filling up those vacant posts of TTE on promotion, fixing the date for suitability test on 3.3.1979. On 3.3.1979 in the said suitability test, the Respondent No. 2 was absent. An additional suitability test, therefore, was fixed on 26.3.1979 for the absentees. But on that date also the Respondent No. 2 was found to be absent. One Sri S. C. Bhowmik was declared successful in the suitability test held for the absentees on 26.3.1979 and promoted to the post of TTE with effect from 8.4.1979. After the promotion of Sri S. C. Bhowmik, again, an another suitability test was held on 10.4.1979 in which Respondent No. 2 appeared and he was promoted to the post of TTE with effect from 20.4.1979. 4. After such promotion of Respondent No. 2 as well as Sri S. C. Bhowmik a pro visional seniority list of TTE was published on 1.4.1982, inviting representations/objections, if any, with regard to seniority position in the said provisional seniority list within one month from the date of issue of the said list, wherein the Respondent No. 2 was placed at serial No. 124 and name of Sri S.C. Bhowmik appeared at serial No. 114. Thereafter, again on 1.4.1986 another provisional seniority list was published and in the said list, Sri S.C. Bhowmik found his name at serial No. 22 and the name of Respondent No. 2 was reflected against serial No. 31. In 1992, again, the third seniority list was published and in the said list also, the respondent No. 2 was shown to be junior to Sri S.C. Bhowmik as earlier. 5. On 7.6.1994, the Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the competent authority questioning his seniority position in those provisional seniority lists of TTE and the said appeal was dismissed on 6.12.1996 observing that Respondent No. 2 did never submit any appeal during the long period when provisional seniority list dated 1.4.1982, 1.4.1986 and the case being 15 years old, it could not be sustained. 6. Being aggrieved by such action of the authority, the Respondent No. 1 being the General Secretary of Bharat Sarkar Railway Karmachari Sangha on behalf of Respondent No. 2 raised a dispute in the matter of fixation of seniority of Respondent No. 2 in Grade-C service before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). When the conciliation proceeding before the said authority fatted, the matter was referred to Government of India, Ministry of Labour for appropriate action as per law. Thereafter, by an order dated 16.10.2001. Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred an industrial dispute to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati being Reference Case No. 16(C)/2001 on the following issue. "1. Whether the action of the management of NF Railway, Guwahati in refusing to correct the seniority position of workman is justified, if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 7. Upon hearing the parties concerned and also on adjudication of the issue so referred, the learned Tribunal held that management of N.F. Railway committed wrong in not entertaining the representation submitted by the workman i.e. Respondent No. 2 and held that for the ends of natural justice the said representation should have been entertained. It was further held by the Tribunal that the refusal or the part of N.F. Railway authority to correct the seniority position of Respondent No. 1 was not justified and that he was entitled to have his seniority as it was prayed for and decided the issue accordingly in favour of Respondent No. 2. Hence, this writ petition b> the management of N.F. Railway. 8. Mr. Hence, this writ petition b> the management of N.F. Railway. 8. Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the petitioner, has impugned the findings of the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal as noticed above, preciously as follows: (i) After the promotion of Mr. S. C. Bhowmik on 8.4.1979 and the Respondent No. 2 on 20.4.1997, as many as three provisional seniority lists dated 1.4.1982, 1.4.1986 including one published in the year 1992, were published. Sri S. C. Bhowmik was placed at Serial No. 114 and the name of Respondent No. 2 shown against serial No. 124 in 1.4.1982 list. As per the provisional seniority list dated 1.4.1986, the Respondent No. 2 was shown in the 31st position and on 22nd position the name of the Sri S.C. Bhowmik was recorded In the list released in the year 1992, the Respondent No.2 was shown junior to Sri S. C. Bhowmik. During all those period the Respondent No. 2 did never raise any objection by filing representation/objection whatsoever save except the representation/ appeal presented only on 7.6.1994 and that too after an unexplained gap of 15 years. In such premises, if the impugned award is allowed to give effect to, it would create further complication in the whole process of promotion in the concerned grade unsettling the already settled position. (ii) Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as one Sri S.C. Bhowmik and other persons whose name appeared above the name of Respondent No. 2 in seniority lists mentioned above were not heard by the Tribunal in deciding the seniority position in the impugned award. 9. To support his submission Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1993) Suppl 3 SCC 181 wherein the Apex Court ruled that since gradation list published in 1985 was in operation for several years which was challenged only in the year 1988, there was laches in seeking remedy and court did not want to unsettle the settled matters which would lead to several complications. 10. Controverting the submissions of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, Dr. Pathak appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has contended that there was no laches on the part of the workman in seeking the relief against his non-consideration of promotion to the post of TTE. 10. Controverting the submissions of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, Dr. Pathak appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has contended that there was no laches on the part of the workman in seeking the relief against his non-consideration of promotion to the post of TTE. As on various occasions, the Respondent No. 2 moved the authority concerned for correction of the seniority lists but the same remained unattended to. Though the Respondent No. 2 could not appear on the suitability test on 3.3.1979 and 26.3.1979, the date fixed for holding the suitability test for such promotion to 34 posts of TTE continued for all these three days i.e. the absentees, he appeared for the suitability 1 for promotion to the post in question 10.4.1979 being the date fixed for absent for second time as the suitability test for j promotion to 34 posts of TTE continued all these three days i.e. initially on 3.3.1S and subsequent dates on 26.3.1979 2 10.4.1979 being fixed only for the absents That being the position, the Respondent 1 2 ought to have been promoted along w other promotees keeping his seniority petition intact over Sri S.C. Bhowmik. Accordingly, considering carefully that aspect of matter, the learned Tribunal correctly order to maintain the seniority of the Respond No. 2 over Sri S. C. Bhowmik. Dr. Pat! has relied on the following decisions of Apex Court: 1) (1978) 2 SCC 188 (Indian Expr Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and another -v.- Employees' Union and others. 2) AIR 1979 SC 1144 (The Madr. Port Trust -v.- Hymanshu International 3) (1983) 1 SCC 436 (M/s Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Agra -Vs. Workmen 4) (1983) 4 SCC 156 (Sadhu Ram Delhi Transport Corporation); 5) (1984) 4 SCC 214 (S. K. Verma -) Mohesh Chandra and another); and 6) (1984) 4 SCC 392 (Workmen Employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. Hindustan Lever Ltd.). 11. Having carefully gone through above cited decisions, this Court finds 1 the prepositions of law laid down in the precedents do not support the case of Respondent No. 2. 12. At this stage, Mr. Sharma has contended that the suitability test for promotion of the Respondent No. 2 held on 10.4.79 was not for the absentees as claimed but it was a fresh suitability test as there is no provision under the law to convene second suitability test for the absentees. 12. At this stage, Mr. Sharma has contended that the suitability test for promotion of the Respondent No. 2 held on 10.4.79 was not for the absentees as claimed but it was a fresh suitability test as there is no provision under the law to convene second suitability test for the absentees. According to him, the suitability test for the absentees can be held only for once as a supplementary selection test and to supplement his submission, he has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant Rules governing the promotion of Group 'C' Staff at page 64 under Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I, which reads as follows: "223. Supplementary Selection/Suitability Test: I. (i) A supplementary selection may be held in the following types of cases : a) summons for interview being received too late by the candidates making it difficult for him to reach the place of interview; b) Administration's failure to relieve him in time for interview; c) Sickness of the candidate or other reason over which the employee has no control. Unavoidable absence will not however, include absence to attend a wedding or similar function or absence over which he has control. Sickness should be covered by a specific service from the Railway Medical Officer, ii) The supplementary meeting of the Selection Board should as far as possible be attended by the same Officers who were present at the first Selection Board and held within one month of the first selection or the return to duty of the employee concerned provided that the employee returned to duty not later than three months after the holding of the first selection. In case the return of the employee is delayed beyond three months, the result of the selection need not be deferred, the name of the employee being incorporated as if he had appeared at the selection when first held. The employee will not be eligible to be considered if he turns to duty more than six months after date of the first selection, iii) Not more than one supplementary select should normally be held to cater to the need! absentee due to sickness, non-intimation, 1 intimation of dates of tests etc. The second supplementary selection should be held rarely and with the personal approval of Chief Personnel Officer based on merits of each case According to Mr. absentee due to sickness, non-intimation, 1 intimation of dates of tests etc. The second supplementary selection should be held rarely and with the personal approval of Chief Personnel Officer based on merits of each case According to Mr. Sharma, since t Respondent No. 2 was selected through separate and independent suitability test which was held much later of promotion of Sri S. Bhowmik, the Respondent No. 2 has no rig to claim seniority over Sri S. C. Bhowmik. On pointed query, Dr. Pathak has failed place any document and/or record to she that the suitability test held on 10.4.1979 w convened for the second time absentees. 13. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the extensive argument advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and also on close examination of the materials available on record, this Court h; reached to the following conclusions: a) After the admitted promotion of Sri! C. Bhowmik and Respondent No. to the post of TIE with effect from 8.4.1979 and 20.4.1979 respectively a provisional seniority list was published on 1, 4.1982 wherein Sri S. ( Bhowmik was placed at Serial No. 11 and the name of respondent No. 2 was shown in Serial No. 124. Thereafter on 1.4.1986 another seniority list was published wherein against Serial No. 22, the name of Sri S. C. Bhowmik was entered and the Respondent No. 2 has been placed at Serial No. 31. Again in 1993, the third seniority list was published wherein Sri S. C. Bhowmik was shown to be senior over the Respondent No.2. But during these Periods the Respondent No. 2 did never represent before the competent authority questioning his placement in those seniority lists below Sri S. C. Bhowmik. It was only on 7.6.94, the Respondent No. 2 represented his case and the concerned authority vide communication dated 6.12.96, rejected such representation. Admittedly the question of seniority of Respondent No. 2 was raised at a very belated stage as the same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal only on 16.10.2001 though there were three seniority lists published after the promotion of Respondent No. 2 as well as one Sri S.C. Bhowmik. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the learned Presiding Officer ought not to have entertained this reference on the ground of delay and laches. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the learned Presiding Officer ought not to have entertained this reference on the ground of delay and laches. Moreso, the award of learned Tribunal giving seniority to the Respondent No. 2 over Sri S. C. Bhowmik has resulted in unsettling the settled matter and if such finding is accepted that will create more complications as regards seniority, b) As regards making Sri S. C. Bhowmik a necessary party in the reference over whom learned Tribunal granted seniority to the Respondent No. 2 as prayed for, he was neither before the Tribunal nor before us. In absence of Sri S. C. Bhowmik who is going to be effected by the impugned award and being necessary party, the learned Presiding Officer ought not to have granted relief to Respondent No. 2. c) Having regard to Rule 223 as has ready been noticed above, this Cc has no hesitation to hold that the s ability test held on 10.4.1979 for promotion of Respondent No. 2 was h independently and not being a test the absentees. More so, no document has been placed before this Court to indicate that the suitability test in question for promotion of Respondent I 2 was convened for the absentees. 14. For the reasons what has be discussed and observed above, this impugned award is liable to be set aside and quash It is ordered accordingly. 15. Consequently, this writ petition star allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.