(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow in Adjudication Case No.21 of 2004.
3. Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent, has filed the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. Workman and the Union. The same is taken on record.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of annexure-13 to the petition, which is a list of documents filed before the Labour Court, that recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for Artisan Grade D Workman dated 15.05.1996 was part of the record of the Labour Court. Item no.4 of the said list of documents has also been filed as annexure-4 to the petition, which is a recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee with regard to the Workman- respondent no.2. It shows clearly that the respondent no.2 had secured only 72.8 marks when his matter was considered on merits and there is a recommendation to the effect that cut off marks is 75 and all those Workmen who were above the grand total of 75 would be eligible for promotion.
5. However, respondent no.1 in the findings recorded in paragraph-9 of the Award has mentioned that no documentary evidence was filed by the employers to show that the workman concerned was ever considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and that he secured only 72.8 as against the cut off of 75 marks. This is a clear misreading of evidence and perverse finding has been recorded which is against the record that was filed before the Labour Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 has however pointed out that the documents that were filed by the petitioners i.e. employers before the Labour Court were not considered as they were not duly proved.
7. However, this Court has perused the internal page no.5 of the Award. There is no mention of the documents filed by the employers to have been rejected as they have not been duly proved. The observation of respondent no.1 on the other hand is that no documentary evidence has been filed at all to show that workman concerned was considered earlier also but had been rejected because he was lacking in relative merit of all other persons who were recommended for promotion.
8. The Award dated 22.04.2019 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1 to consider afresh taking into account all documents filed by the petitioner before it. Since objections and counter objections have been filed and pleadings before the Labour Court are complete including oral evidence of employers witness and that of the workman, it is expected that respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the case finally within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
9. While deciding the adjudication case no.21 of 2004, the respondent no.1 shall also take into account the objections filed by the petitioners employers regarding the maintainability of the adjudication case before it.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Rahul