Union Territory, Chandigarh vs The Presiding Officer and another

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the labour Court dated 24.12.1999 (Copy Annexure P/5) vide which the order dated 23.12.1992 reverting the respondent-workman to the post of Helper Tyreman from the post of Assistant Tyreman was set-aside. Workman Kirpal Singh has averred that he was promoted as Assistant Tyreman vide order dated 10.11.1989 as per the seniority and after the appraisal of his service record against the vacantpost. However, by order dated 23.12.1992 he was reverted to the post of Helper Tyreman. The contention of the workman is that he had been promoted on the regular and vacant post and there was no provision for ad hoc promotion. Petitioner''s case is that the workman was Helper Tyre-man and was promoted as Assistant Tyreman but the said promotion was on purely temporary and ad hoc basis and subject io the approval of Departmental Promotion Commiltee (for short DPC) after the completion of two years experience. The petitioner had further pleaded that (he work of the workman was not satisfactory and he was awarded several punishments and according to the petitioner, theDPC in its meeting held on 16.12.1992 did not approve the name of the workman for promotion as Assistant Tyreman.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that this writ petition is without merit.

The Labour Court has considered all these aspects and held that the post of Tyreman (Shouldbe Assistant Tyreman) was non-selection post and had to be made as per seniority. The D.P.C. had considered the record of the workman after his promotion as Assistant Tyreman and not the record of the feeder post from which he was promoted and, therefore, the promotion as such could not be cancelled. It has also considered the fact that the workman was entitled to promotion as per seniority and if his record prior to the promotion was not bad, he should have been promoted. The Labour Court has considered the fact that the PPC had taken into consideration that the workman had wilfully remained absent from duty w.e.f. 12.4.1991 to 15.4.1991 and from 23.4.1991 to 7.5.1991 and that this was a grave misconduct on his part. Respondent-workman was already promoted as Assistant Tyreman, though on ad hoc basis, during the period his alleged absenting from duty. What the DPC has to consider is whether a person is fit for promotion or not. For that, it has to take into consideration the work he is doing in the feeder post. The Labout Court is, therefore, right in holding that the D.P.C. should have considered the work for a period prior to 10.11.1989. Even the Labour Court has observed that maximum period of probation i.e. three years has also been completed by the workman and the probation was also not extended.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Baldev Singh, . It has been held therein that when there is a reversion to substantive post from a post held on ad hoc basis, no rights had accrued in favour of the employee, question of giving opportunity of hearing before passing such order does not arise. However, as we have found that the Labour Court has rightly held that the reversion was not proper, the question of giving notice does not arise.

We find no reason to interfere with the reasons given by the Labour Court. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.