1. This petition has been preferred for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to grant consequential benefits of reinstatement to the petitioner at par with his juniors in service from the retrospective date along with arrears and 18% interest and to fix his seniority by considering him in continuous service.
2. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are that the petitioner was appointed as Helper in the respondent-Company in the year 1983. However, he was terminated from service on 22.09.1988 on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism. Against the said action of the respondent, the petitioner raised a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into reference LCA No.1810/1990 before the Labour Court concerned. The said reference was disposed of by judgment and award dated 23.04.2004 whereby, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service without any back wages. It appears that the Labour Court had not made any observations regarding "continuity of service" while passing the above award. The petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 21.10.2004.
3. By letter dated 13.05.2010 the respondents published a Seniority List of Assistant Lineman and Helpers. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had not restored him in the seniority along with his juniors after being reinstated in service on account of which he was denied the benefit of promotion, fixation of pay, etc. which were granted to the juniors. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Mr.
P.H. Pathak learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not implemented the award passed by the Labour Court in its proper spirit. He submitted that since the Labour Court had granted reinstatement in service, the benefit of "continuity of service" is implicitly included in it. Therefore, the respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of "continuity of service" to the petitioner.
5. Mr.
D.R. Dave learned counsel for respondent no.2-Company submitted that the petitioner was offered promotion to the Post of Assistant Lineman but, the same was refused by him. He submitted that the petitioner is directly claiming promotion to the Post of Lineman, without serving on the Post of Assistant Lineman, which is not permissible. He further submitted that the Labour Court had not granted the benefit of "continuity in service" while passing the award and therefore, the petitioner could not claim the same in this proceedings. He submitted that an employee is promoted to the higher post on the basis of his qualification and work experience and that if promotion is given, ignoring the work experience, it may prove fatal to the employer. Hence, the present petition deserves to be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the record that the petitioner was earlier terminated from service on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism. However, by award dated 23.04.2004 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner was granted reinstatement in service, without back wages, continuity of service or any consequential benefits. A copy of the award has been produced vide Annexure-A to the memo of petition.
7. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of "continuity of service" by inter alia contending that the said benefit is deemed to have been granted when reinstatement in service is awarded by the Labour Court. However, I do not agree with the above proposition of law put forward by learned counsel Mr. Pathak since such proposition is not known to service jurisprudence. In my opinion, unless the Labour Court specifically grants the benefit of "continuity of service" or "consequential benefits" in its award, the employee concerned cannot claim that such benefits are deemed to have been granted, along with the order of reinstatement in service. The direction regarding "continuity of service" or "consequential benefits" has to form part of the final award. Its absence from the final award would not mean that said benefits are deemed to have been granted.
8. The petitioner is claiming promotion to a higher post, without rendering any service on the immediate lower post. The petitioner is presently serving as Helper and is seeking promotion to the post of Lineman, without having any work experience on the immediate lower post of Assistant Lineman. Without serving for a single day on the post of Assistant Lineman, the petitioner is claiming promotion to the higher post of Lineman, which cannot be granted. If the proposition of "continuity in service" as put by learned counsel Mr. Pathak is accepted, then a qualified and experienced employee would be superseded by an employee, who does not have any work experience on the immediate lower post, and which may, ultimately, prove fatal to the employer. Hence, the petitioner does not have any case on merits.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only] to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for wasting the Courts time by arguing the matter in a very absurdly manner. Notice is discharged.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top