The Management v. The Presiding Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :15.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.No.28456 of 2004 and W.M.P.No.34567 of 2004 & W.V.M.P.No.217 of 2007 The Management, North Arcot District Govt.
Servants' Cooperative Society Limited, No.C 3858, Fort Round Road, Bharathiyar Street, Vellore.
..Petitioner Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore.
2.A.Ganesan ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the Award dated 15.07.2004 in I.D.No.199/99, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan For R1 : Court For R2 : Mr.K.B.Arul
O R D E R
The second respondent herein, who was appointed as a salesman in the petitioner's Society, raised a dispute seeking for promotion to the post of Cashier from the date on which similarly placed salesmen were promoted. Since he did not possess the required qualifications, the dispute ended in failure, which was taken up by the Labour Court in I.D.No.199 of
99. Through an order dated 15.07.2004, the Labour Court found that the salesmen, who did not possess the required qualifications were promoted to the post of Cashier and therefore, on the ground of discrimination, directed the Management to pay the monetary benefits, on par with the persons
who have been promoted retrospectively from 1975 as a salesman and 1994 as a Cashier. Aggrieved against the Award, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/Management.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent was not recruited in accordance with the procedure and rules and that he does not have the minimum Educational qualification and therefore, is not entitled for retrospective promotional monetary benefits.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the ground on which the dispute was objected is that the second respondent did not possess the required qualification to be promoted to the post of Cashier and since it was proved before the Labour Court that some of the salesmen, who did not possess the required qualification, were also promoted, the Labour Court had held it to be discriminative and therefore, there is no infirmity in the Award.
4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. The scope of interference to the Award of Industrial Dispute by this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very minimum and barring a few exceptions like the Award being based on "no evidence etc", re-appreciation of the evidence of the Labour Court is impermissible.
5. In the instant case, the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Cashier for the employees of the petitioner/Management is SSLC, with a Cooperative Training Certificate. Admittedly, the second respondent does not possess SSLC and had not passed the required training. However, the Labour Court had appreciated the oral evidence of the Management witnesses, as well as the exhibits and found that similar employees, who did not possess the required qualification for the promotion to the post of Cashier, were promoted by relaxing the qualifications and therefore, found it be a case of hostile discrimination.
6. It is further stated that the President of the Society had also recommended for the promotion of the second respondent herein, though he did not possess the required qualification, but however the proposal was not acted upon.
7. These factual findings cannot be interfered by this Court and as such, I do not find any infirmity on the ultimate finding that the denial of promotion to the second respondent would amount to discrimination. In other words, in view of the discrimination of not relaxing the educational qualification for promotion, the second respondent would be entitled for notional
promotion. As such, there are no merits in the present case.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-CCC) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Pns To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore.
+1cc to Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan, Advocate SR.No.9805 W.P.No.28456 of 2004 MT(CO) GMY(08/03/2022)