AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Nayak, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad (for short ''the Tribunal'') dated 18.3.1997 in R.A. No. 103 of 1994 in O.A. No. 763 of 1993 allowing the Review Application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein.
The respondents 1 to 3 herein were not parties to O.A. No. 763 of 1993. That O.A. was filed by one R. Posanna Goud and three others seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to permit them to appear for the Trade Test of Industrial Employees for promotion from skilled grade to highly skilled Grade-II Turners. That O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 16.9.1993 directing the petitioners herein to accord appropriate seniority to the applicants 1 to 4 therein in the skilled grade from the date they were promoted from semi-skilled grade and permit them to appear for the Trade Test of Industrial Employees for promotion from skilled grade to highly skilled grade-II Turners, subject to the applicants possessing the required seniority and eligibility to appear for the said Trade test.
The petitioner No.3 herein, the Ordinance Factory Project is a defence Production Unit and is registered as factory under the provisions of Factories Act, 1948. The work force of the factory consists of Industrial Employees, Non-Industrial Employees/Non-Gazetted Officers and Gazetted Officers. The Industrial Employees in Ordinance Factories Organization belong to 64 trades and their grade structure is as under:
It is stated that the induction point of the candidates possessing ITI and NCTVT is the semi-skilled grade carrying the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. On completion of 2 years of service in the semi-skilled grade, the incumbents are trade tested and promoted to skilled grade and thereafter to the next higher grades of HS Grade-II and Master Craftsman, depending upon suitability of the candidates and availability of vacancies.
It appears that till 1993, the seniority of semi-skilled employees on their promotion to skilled grade was being maintained in the 3rd petitioner factory on the basis of the inter se seniority position in the semi skilled grade. This procedure adopted by the 3rd petitioner factory management was assailed by two batches of employees in O,A. No. 763 of 1993 and 730 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of O.A. No. 763 of 1993 by its order dated 16.9.1993 basing its decision on its judgment in OA No. 730 of 1993 passed on the same date and issued certain directions already noticed above. In compliance with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 763 of 1993, the management of the 3rd petitioner factory made fresh seniority lists of Industrial Employees in skilled grade pertaining to all the trades and this was being followed for the purpose of promotion from skilled grade to the next higher grade of Highly skilled Grade-II carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800. When the matter stood thus, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Review Application No. 103/94 before the Tribunal, wherein they contended that even on promotion to skilled grade, their inter se seniority should be maintained on the basis of their merit position in the semi skilled grade. It further appears that Industrial employees belonging to some other trade had also filed similar applications praying for reckoning of their seniority in the skilled grades on the basis of the merit position in the semi skilled grade.
The said R.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 18.3.1997. The operative portion of the said order is as under:
In view of what is stated above the direction given in OA No. 763 of 1993 is modified as under;
The seniority of the applicants in the Skilled Grade-III in this R.A. shall be the same as their seniority in the empanelled list for semi-skilled provided
i) Their late joining in the department as a semi-skilled Turner is due to the reasons beyond their control. (Late joining due to late submission of the police report should not be a reason for lowering their seniority).
ii) The extention of the probation period is on account of administrative reasons and not because of the reasons attributable to the applicants. (Whether extention of probation period due to grant of leave of more than 45 days is attributable to the applicant Order not has to be examined individual case wise and a decision has to be taken).
iii) The employee has passed the trade test for promotion to the skilled grade III in the first attempt.
The case of the each of the applicant in this RA and the others in the seniority list should be examined employee-wise and a decision has to be taken in regard to the fixation of their seniority in the cadre of skilled grade-III.
Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the order of the learned Tribunal made in the Review Application No. 103 of 1994. On behalf of the petitioner authorities it was contended that there was absolutely no good ground for the Tribunal to review the order made by its in O.A. No. 763 of 1993. It was also contended that the reason given by the Tribunal to review the order that the delay occurred on account of the delay in receipt of PVR was escaped the consideration of the Tribunal while disposing O.A. No. 763 of 1993 is factually incorrect.
On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent would support the impugned order of the leaned Tribunal.
The question that arises for consideration is whether the seniority of a candidate should be fixed on the basis of his seniority in the semi-skilled Grade or on the basis of the date on which he was promoted to the skilled grade;
If the Court were to hold that the actual date on which, an employee is promoted to the skilled grade should be the criteria to determine the seniority of such employee in the skilled grade, the opinion reached by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, if the Court were to hold that the seniority of an employee promoted to the skilled grade has to be determined on the basis of his seniority in the semi-skilled grade from which he was promoted, no fault can be found in the opinion of the learned Tribunal.
We have specifically asked the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent as to whether there is any statutory rule governing fixation of seniority of the employees who are to be promoted to the skilled grade from the semi-skilled grade, where a senior could not report to the promoted post for some or the other reason before his junior reported for duty in the promoted grade, the learned counsel told us that there is no such statutory rule. If that is so, no exception tan be taken to the directions issued by the learned Tribunal in its original order in OA No. 763 of 1997 directing the petitioner authorities herein to fix the seniority of the applicants therein in the skilled grade taking in to account the dates on which they were promoted from semi-skilled grade. Apart from this position, we also find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thee was absolutely no good ground for the Tribunal to review its order. The opinion of the learned Tribunal that the fact of delay in receipt of PVR and consequent delay was not taken note of by the learned Tribunal when it disposed of O.A. No. 763 of 1993 is factually incorrect. As pointed out supra, O.A. No. 763 of 1993 was based on the judgment delivered by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 703 of 1993. In that judgment the Tribunal specifically referred and considered the above contentions. Therefore, we should hold that the reasons given by the Tribunal to review the order is based on misreading of the judgment.
In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order made by the Tribunal dated 18.3.1997 in R.A. No. 103 of 1994 and restore the order made by the Tribunal dated 16.9.1993 in O.A. No. 763 of 1993 with no order as to costs.