AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sodhi, J.—In essence and substance the controversy here is with regard to the inter se seniority of the four Petitioners and Shri J.D. Ratra. Respondent No. 2, for promotion to the post of Chief Cashier in the Officer''s grade of the Central Bank of India, Chandigarh A dispute to this effect having arisen, it was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal by its award of April 29, 1976 (Annexure P-7) held in favour of Shri J.D. Ratra-respondent No. 2 and directed the Management to promote him to the post of Chief Cashier in the Officer''s grade with effect from August 1, 1971, in preference to the Petitioners. It is this award which stands challenged in this writ petition.
In order to appreciate the controversy raised, it would be relevant to bear in mind that the Petitioners were appointed as Cashiers in the bank on February 28, 1949 while Shri J.D. Ratra Respondent No. 2 was appointed on November 28, 1960. Shri Ratra was, however, appointed as Head Cashier before the Petitioners. He was appointed as such on July 29, 1961. It was sometime thereafter that the Petitioners were appointed as Head Cashiers. On July 1, 1966 the Petitioners as also Shri Ratra were appointed Head Cashiers in category ''C On March 1, 1968 the Petitioners were appointed Head Cashiers in category ''E'' while Shri Ratra Respondent No. 2 was appointed as such on May 1, 1969. On August 1, 1971 the Petitioners were appointed as Chief Cashiers in the Officer''s grade. The grievance of Shri J.D. Ratra was that he being senior to them should have been appointed earlier.
Before proceeding further, it deserves mention that there was one running grade for the Clerical Banking Staff for all the post of Assistant Cashier to Head Cashier. In other words, an Assistant Cashier even on appointment as Head Cashier continued in the same scale of pay as that of Assistant Cashier except that he was given a special allowance of Rs. 40/- per mensem on appointment as Head Cashier.
According to the return filed on behalf of the Respondent-bank, when Shri J.D. Ratra was appointed as Head Cashier there was no promotion policy in terms of which he was appointed as Head Cashier, nor was there any categorisation in the post of Head Cashier. The promotion policy came to be formulated by the bipartite settlement of June 30, 1973. This policy, in so far as is relevant here, was set out in paragraph 14 thereof, which is in the following terms:
Promotion to the posts of Chief Cashiers in Bank''s Officer cadre.
Promotions to the Chief Cashiers posts in the Bank''s Officer Cadre from amongst the existing employees of the Cash Department staff who have completed six years service reckoned from the date of probation will ordinarily be made on the basis of the groupwise seniority with weightage for accompanying qualifications as prescribed under Clause 2 of this policy provided, however, the seniormost existing Head Cashiers in Clerical cadre drawing special allowance in terms of Bipartite Settlement will have a first claim in order of their own seniority to the posts of Chief Cashiers notwithstanding the fact that there may be other Cash clerks senior to them. These posts of Chief Cashiers will be filled in after interview by Interviewing Committee, consisting of three Senior Officers.
Maximum age limit for promotion to Chief Cashiers in Officer Cadre will be 56 years of age.
The settlement of January 30, 1970, was later modified by the subsequent settlement of March 24, 1972. Clause (6) thereof is relevant here. This reads as under:
These Head Cashiers posts will be filled up on the basis of groupwise seniority as on 1-8-1971 of the existing Head Cashiers in category ''E'' and ''C in respective groups.
What deserves notice is that the policy as set out above prescribed that the seniormost Head Cashiers drawing special allowance would have a first claim to the post of Chief Cashier in the Officer''s grade. It will be recalled that when this policy came into being, the Petitioners as also Shri J.D. Ratra-respondent No. 2 were Head Cashiers. While they had ail been promoted to this post in category ''C on the same date i.e. July 1, 1966, the Petitioners had been appointed as Head Cashiers in category ''E'' on March 1, 1968, whereas Shri J.D. Ratra had been appointed on a date subsequent thereto i.e. May 1, 1969. Further on the date when the Settlement came onto being all the Petitioners were drawing higher pay than Shri J.D. Ratra.
Where the Tribunal fell in error was, in assuming that the Petitioners and Shri J.D. Ratra had been promoted as Head Cashiers on the same day, both in category ''C'' as also in category ''E'' The Tribunal, in assuming so, relied upon a seniority list prepared by the bank which showed Shri J.D. Ratra as senior to the Petitioners. It is pertinent to note, however, that the stand of the bank itself was that this list had not been prepared for the purpose of promotion to the post of Chief Cashier in the Officer''s grade and was, therefore, not correct There is no other evidence on the record which the counsel for Shri J.D. Ratra could point to, whereby it could he shown that the Petitioners and Shri J.D. Ratra were appointed to the posts of Head Cashiers in category ''E'' on the same day. Indeed the correct-ness of the date of his appointment to this post, namely. May, 1969 was not questioned by him.
The other important aspect of the matter, which escaped the notice of the Tribunal was that there was one running pay scale for Assistant Cashiers and Head Cashiers prior to the Settlement of January 30, 1970. Whether a person was an Assistant Cashier or Head Cashier, his pay was not affected in this pay scale. It was only that there was a special pay of Rs. 40/- per mensem for a person who was appointed Head Cashier. Appointment as Head Cashier operated on what was known as ''Guarantee System'' namely when the requisite guarantor come, forth and stands guarantee for the person to be appointed as Head Cashier. In other words, appointment to the post of Head Cashier prior to the Settlement was not under any policy of promotion as such Considered in this context, there is no escape from the conclusion that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the finding of the Tribunal that Shri J.D. Ratra was entitled to seniority over the Petitioners. Indeed under the terms of the Settlement, it was the Petitioners who were entitled to the seniority over Sari J.D. Ratra. The award of the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained.
Counsel for the Respondent Mr. J.D. Ratra, had sought to question the jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate in the matter by laying embhasis on the fact that the award here had been made by the Tribunal located at Delhi. The argument being that the cause of action in this matter thus arose in Delhi and it was only the High Court of Delhi, therefore, that had jurisdiction in the matter. In this behalf the doctrine of merger was sought to be pressed-in-aid by seeking to rely upon the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in P.K. Pavoo v. The State AIR 1959 Ker 65. The challenge here was to an award of an IndLIS trial Tribunal situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court, but it was confirmed on appeal by the Labour Appellate Tribunel which was situated outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. It was held that the order of the Tribunal became merged with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and as the Appellate Tribunal was not ameanable to the High Court''s jurisdiction the High Court lacked jurisdiction even with regard to the impugned award of the Tribunal.
The contention, raised is clearly of no avail to the Respondents. No occasion arises here for invoking the doctrine of merger. Admittedly part of the casue of action here arose within the State of Haryana where the impugned orders of seniority were passed. After the 15th amendment of the Constitution, whereby Clause 1(A) came to be incorporated in Article 226 of the Constitution, even if a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, that Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. It cannot, therefore, be and that this Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
For the fore going reasons the award of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the Petitioners are held entitled to seniority over Sh J.D. Ratra in the manner indicated above. The Petitioners shall accordingly be entitled to all consequential benefits accruing therefrom.
This Writ Petition is accepted, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.