Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Chander vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 March, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR227
JUDGMENT G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This judgment disposes of civil writ petitions Nos. 8896 of 1990 and 978 of 1990 alongwith civil miscellaneous No. 9780 of 1991 since common question of law and facts arise for determination therein To resolve the dispute raised in these petitions, reference has been made to the facts from the pleadings in civil writ petition No. 8896 of 1990, Facts first:-
2. The petitioner joined respondent No. 2 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum Godown Keeper on March 26, 1981. He was confirmed on the said post on September 26, 1981. He was promoted as a Cashier-Incharge in October, 1984. Till November 1989, he was posted at Sultanpur Lodhi. Thereafter he was transferred to the Railway Road Branch, Hoshiarpur, at his own request as Clerk-cum-Cashier cum Godown Keeper. In February, 1990 he was promoted as a Cashier-Incharge. Respondent No. 2 issued a circular dated March 29, 1990 for selection of Cash Officers in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (for short J. M. G. S.-I) The eligibility criteria was as under :-
(i) Head Cashiers Category 'C' ;
(ii) Head Cashiers and Clerks-cum-Cashiers Incharge Category 'A' who have worked as such in the post for a minimum period of four years and have at least eight priority marks on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications. Priority marks shall be computed as on 1.1.1990 as per procedure laid down in settlement dated 1.11.1988 circulated vide circular No. 1116 dated 28-11-1988.
(iii) Clerks-cum-Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, Cashiers-cum-Godown Keepers who have worked exclusively in cash department for a minimum period of 8 years and who are designated as such on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications.
The written test for selection was to be held on May 20, 1990 . The petitioner claims that he was fully eligible to sit in the written test. He was [denied permission to sit in the written test on the ground that he was ineligible to sit in |the test in view of the settlement dated November 1, 1988, arrived at by respondent No. 2 with all India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation. Settlement dated March ?, 1978 was substituted by settlement dated July 7, 1990, which was arrived at between the parties during the conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central).
3. The Motion Bench permitted the petitioner to sit in the written test. At the time of hearing of these petitions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 stated at the Bar that petitioners in civil writ petition No. 978 of 1990 were not successful in the written test and that the result of petitioner in civil writ petition No. 8896 of 1990 was not officially declared but he had information that they were unsuccessful in the written test In the light of the statement, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed having been rendered infructuous but the learned counsel for the petitioners maintain that the writ petition should be disposed of on merits. It was under these circumstances that I heard the parties at length on merits of the controversy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the petitioners fulfil eligibility criteria laid down in circular letter dated March 29, 1990. The respondent denied that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria. I am not inclined to go into this disputed question for the reason that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition deserves to be upheld. The respondent maintains that settlement dated November 1, 1988 was arrived at in the conciliation proceedings and is binding on the parties. The settlement was substituted by settlement dated July 7, 1990. The binding policy is provided under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). If there is breach of the settlement or there is any disagreement/ dispute regarding the interpretation of the settlement, the same is to be referred as industrial dispute under Section 36A of the Act. The remedy of the petitioner; if any, lay under Section 36A of the Act and not by way of this writ petition. This Court in extraordinary jurisdiction will not examine the correctness of the settlement. The parties to the settlement are bound by its terms, if any party is aggrieved by the terms of the settlement, the remedy lay under the provisions of the Act.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitions have been rendered infructuous for the reason that the petitioner has failed in the selection test for JMGS I post. Even otherwise, the petitioners are bound by the settlement and the remedy, if any, lay under the Act and not by way of the writ petition. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Civil miscellaneous No. 9780 of 1991 is also disposed of.