The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment dated 08.02.2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.
The Division Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji passed this order while hearing a petition filed by The Union Of India and 3 Others.
The Original Application was filed by the respondent No 1 challenging the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the Senior Divisional North Central Railway, Allahabad, the fourth respondent, which order came to be passed, consequent to the directions issued in a writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition (Malik Hafeez Uddin v Union of India and others).
The relevant facts which emerge from a perusal of the judgment dated 15.10.2012, is that the petitioner was appointed as Khalasi in 1967 in the Railway. He claimed to have been promoted to the post of Material Clerk on 13.01.1981, by the order of the Divisional Superintendent Engineer, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Allahabad.
The petitioner filed Case before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was allowed on 7.11.1984 with the finding that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Material Clerk on 13.01.1981. Further applications were filed for the salary of a Material Clerk before the presiding officer, Labour Court, which was allowed on 05.12.1984, 21.04.1986, 20.09.1990.
Challenge to the aforesaid orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, came to be dismissed on 30.05.1997. Consequently the Writ Petition was also dismissed on 04.05.1998.
The petitioner thereafter, since he was not paid the salary of Material Clerk, filed Writ Petition, which was disposed of by the order dated 19.04.2000 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation.
The representation was filed on 26.02.2001. The Divisional Superintendent Engineer, Northern Central Railway, DRM Office, Allahabad dismissed the same. The order was challenged by means of Original Application, which was dismissed on 09.01.2009.
The Court observed that,
It transpires from the record that the claim of the petitioner was that he was promoted to post of Material Clerk on 13.01.1981. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the petitioner was promoted on 23.08.1991 on the post of Store-man after undergoing an eligibility test.
The Writ Court in Writ petition, relying upon the finding returned by the Labour Court in the order dated 07.11.1984, which held that the petitioner was promoted as Material Clerk with effect from 13.01.1981, set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and the matter was remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order. The representation/claim of the petitioner was again rejected. Thereafter, the Original Application was filed which has been allowed by the impugned order in the petition.
It is contended that the post of Material Clerk is a promotional post, to be filled on the basis of a suitability test having been conducted and no such test was conducted nor the respondent in the petition ever participated in any such test and that the impugned order has been passed contrary to these admitted facts.
Counsel for the petitioner, on a pointed query by the Court, has not been able to dispute the fact that orders passed by the Labour Court on applications under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, granting salary of a Material Clerk to the petitioner have never been challenged. It is on the basis of these orders that the Writ Court earlier recorded a finding that the respondent had been promoted to the post of Material Clerk on 13.01.1981.
The Court said that,
Even if, the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner is admitted that this promotion was merely ad hoc and that the petitioner was never selected to the post of Material Clerk, in accordance with the settled procedure, it would be relevant to note that the dispute is basically a labour dispute under labour law, there exists a concept of fitment, according to which, a workman is to be paid to the wages for the post, he is working and performing. Ostensibly the orders of the Labour Court granting salary of a Material Clerk were passed on this basis.
In any case, the findings returned by the Labour Court and more specifically, the findings returned by the writ court in the judgement of 2012, have not been set aside by any superior court and the same is therefore binding between the parties.
“The Central Administrative Tribunal in its impugned order has rightly observed that it was not open for the respondents to go behind the findings returned by Writ Court and to hold contrary to such finding of this court, that the petitioner had been promoted on the post of Material Clerk on 13.01.1981 and hence not entitled to the salary of such post.
In such view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which would justify any interference,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.