JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 18th February, 1989 passed by the Labour Court-V, Kanpur in Adjucation Case No. 149 of 1987 between Kanpur Sahkari Milk Board Limited, Nirla Nagar, Kanpur and Dugdh Parishad Karmchari Sangh. By the impugned award the claim of the petitioner was rejected.
3. The petitioner was initially engaged with respondent No. 2 with effect from 12.11.69. As per averments made in the writ petition he was deputed to work as Junior Clerk ( Route) immediately after a week but was given the grade of Junior Clerk ( Route) only with effect from 1.2.71. Aggrieved the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 49 of 1986 regarding grant of the grade of Junior Clerk ( Route) with effect from the date of his appointment i.e. 12.11.69.
4. The Tribunal by the impugned award held that the services of the petitioner are to be treated as Junior Clerk ( Route) with effect from November, 1969 and not with effect from 1.2.71.
5. It is claimed that the petitioner thereafter was orally directed to discharge the duties of higher post of Sale Inspector / Sale Supervisor to control and improve the work of transport Section. It is also claimed that one Senior Clerk Sri S.K. Tripathi was posted under him on 4.11.74. Aggrieved that respondent No. 2 was taking the duties of higher responsibilities from the petitioner but was not paying the corresponding grade of the higher post, he raised an Industrial dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 70 of 1975 before the Industrial . Tribunal ( I), Allahabad, The Tribunal by the impugned award granted special pay of Rs. 25/- per month to the petitioner for discharging the additional responsibilities and also directed to be given designation of Junior Clerk (Despatch). The award was implemented with effect from 7.12.73.
6. The petitioner again raised an Industrial Dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 20 of 1976 and it was decided in his favour and he was reinstated in service with effect from the date of his removal from service. The respondents employer filed a writ petition before this Court which was also dismissed and the petitioner was taken in employment on 3.1 1.1983 and since then he is working uninterruptedly. It appears that in 1983 some other higher posts fell vacant in Sale Section and all these posts were filled by direct recruitment. The petitioner claimed promotion on one of the posts alleging that the aforesaid posts have been filled in violating all the Rules which provide that 50% posts of the Sale Section are to be filled by promotion and remaining 50% posts by direct recruitment. When the grievance of the petitioner was not mitigated he raised an Industrial Dispute vide C.B. Application No. 64 of 1987. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the following matter of dispute was referred for adjudication to Labour Court-V Kanpur where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 149 of 1987.
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed ,- ,u- f=ikBh iq= Jh cnzh izlkn frokjh twfu;j DydZ fMLiSp dh foØ; fujh{kd ds in ij iszkUufr u fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @ vFkok oS/kkfud gS+\ ;fn ugha] rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk @ vuqrks"k @ fjyhQ @ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] fdl frfFk ls ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\** The award was given by the Labour Court on 18th February, 1989 which was published by publication on a Notice Board on 15.3.89. By the impugned award the Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award he has filed this writ petition.
7. The Labour Court in the impugned award has held that there were 6 employees who were seniors to the petitioner and if promotion was to be made they were entitled to be considered for the promotion first. It further held that the production in the respondents' factory has been closed down with effect from June, 1981 and was restarted in October, 1983. During this period, the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence to establish his case that he had worked on higher post of Sale Inspector and Sale Supervisor. The Labour Court further held that from the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner it could not be proved by him that he had performed the duties of Sale Inspector and Sale Supervisor, even he did not summon any such document from the employer as such the Labour Court disbelieved the case of the workman that he had performed the duties of higher post and held that the demand of higher post and its corresponding pay scale is unjustified.
8. The Labour Court also took into consideration the judgment in Adjudication Case No. 70 of 1975 as well as the evidence tendered by the parties in the case before it as well as the conciliation proceedings in C.B. Case No. 13 of 1985. According to the agreement the fitment of the petitioner along with Sajid Ahmad and C.B. Mishra was made in the pay scale of Rs. 354-550 with effect from 1.4.1994 regarding which a dispute was raised. Considering all these aspects of the matter the Labour Court has held that the concerned workman Sri A.N. Tripathi can not be given the designation of the higher promotional post and he has already been paid the pay scale of the aforesaid post under the agreement and is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
9. From the affidavit filed along with the petition it appears that the petitioner was 50 years of age when the petition was filed in 1989. He must have retired by now. There was no evidence before the Labour Court that the petitioner was discharging the duties of higher post as such the Labour Court has rightly not granted any relief to the petitioner for promotion to the higher post. Promotion is a managerial function and the rights of the persons senior to the petitioner could not have been over looked. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was given the higher pay scale which he had demanded as per agreement but was No. l entitled for designation as there were six persons senior to him and further that the petitioner has failed to prove his case.
10. For all these reasons stated above it is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court as no perversity or illegality has been shown by the counsel for the petitioner.
11. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.