Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman Prasad Soni vs . on 11 January, 2016
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.893/2014
Hanuman Prasad Soni
Vs.
The Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal and labour Court, Jaipur.
Date of Judgment :: 11.01.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr. M.S. Godara, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shreyas Vyas, for the respondent-Bank.
<><><><> This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated March 27, 2014 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3313/2000. By the judgment impugned, the learned Single Bench affirmed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 14.3.2000.
The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication in this appeal is that the appropriate Government by a notification dated 7.6.1999 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Indistrial Tribunal, Jaipur in the terms that "whether the action of the management of UCO Bank treating the qualification of Hindi Sahitya Sammelana, Allahabad not equivalent to the matric and consequently not promoting Sh. Hanuman Prasad Soni, Daftari despite his 20 years of satisfactory service in the Bank whereas his juniors were promoted by the management is justified ? If not, 2 what relief the workman is entitled to ?".
In the statement of claim, the appellant-workman mentioned that he acquired a qualification of Prathama in the year 1983 which was a qualification equivalent to Secondary School Examination but the employer ignoring that, did not promote him in the ministerial cadre. The statement of claim was also supported by an affidavit sworn in by the workman.
The employer in its return stated that the bank by its circular dated 25.5.1982 de-recognised the qualification aforesaid as equivalent to SLC/Intermediate being a qualification only in the subject of Hindi. The employer also rebutted the allegation that any person junior than the workman who acquired the qualification of Prathama after 25.5.1982 was promoted to the ministerial cadre. The return filed was also supported by an affidavit sworn in by a competent officer of the respondent-Bank.
Learned Tribunal after examining whatever material available on record arrived at the conclusion that non promotion to the workman was justified and as such, he is not entitled for any direction claimed for. However, on basis of the subsequent qualification acquired by the appellant, the employer was directed to consider his case in accordance with law.
The appellant-workman being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, preferred a petition for writ, that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned. Suffice to mention that the petitioner while questioning correctness of the finding arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal with regard to denial of 3 promotion to him also prayed for compliance of the direction given with regard to consideration of his case on basis of subsequent qualification acquired by him. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition in light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shankar Lal Verma & 13 others Vs. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board reported in RLW 1999(1) Raj. 55.
In the case aforesaid, a Full Bench of this Court while relying upon a decision taken by the Government of Rajasthan held that the qualification of Prathama obtained from Hindi Sahitaya Sammelan shall not be treated as equivalent to the qualification of Secondary School Examination/Matric subsequent to the date on which the Government of Rajasthan de-recognised the same.
In appeal, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the qualification of Prathama was acquired by the appellant in the year 1983 i.e. prior to 28.6.1985 and on basis of the same qualification, certain persons junior to him were promoted to the ministerial cadre. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel has brought into our notice the specific averments contained in para 10 of the affidavit sworn in by the workman.
While opposing the claim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank states that in the instant case, the employer bank de-recognised the qualification of Prathama on 25.5.1982. Therefore, the cut off date settled in the case of Shankar Lal Verma (supra) is not at all relevant. 4
So far as the averments contained in para 10 of the affidavit are concerned, it is stated that the same were denied by the bank in its written statement as well as in the affidavit sworn in by the officer incharge of the case. The contents of the affidavit sworn in by the officer incharge are based on record, and therefore, no reason exists to disbelieve the same. It is also brought into our notice that on the basis of experience, the appellant-workman has already been promoted to the ministerial cadre much back in the year 2001.
Heard learned counel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that the date on which the appellant- petitioner acquired the qualification of Prathama, was not treated as an equivalent qualification to Secondary School Examination/Matric by the Bank. The appellant as such, was not entitled to be considered for promotion to the ministerial cadre on basis of that.
The fact that certain persons junior than the petitioner who acquired the same qualification subsequent to 25.5.1982 has also been denied by the bank. True it is, the workman in his statement of claim referred names of the persons to whom such promotions were said to be given and the bank has not given details of the persons but it was mentioned quite unambiguously that no person junior than the petitioner who acquired the qualification of Prathama after 25.5.1982 was promoted. In such circumstances, the burden to establish this fact was upon the workman, but he failed to discharge that.
5
In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that the Industrial Tribunal rightly accepted the contentions advanced on behalf of the bank.
So far as the subsequent qualification acquired by the appellant is concerned, that was not a part of the reference made and therefore, we do not want to adjudicate that issue in the instant matter.
For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
[NIRMALJIT KAUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. praveen