General Manager Personnel, vs The Chairman,
2022 Latest Caselaw 771 Tel

                                        1



THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                                      AND

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                       WRIT APPEAL No.815 of 2009

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


      This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated

14.03.2007 passed in W.P.No.35265 of 1997 by the learned Single

Judge.


      02.    Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the

appellant, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the 1st

respondent      and   the   learned   Standing   Counsel        for   the   2nd

respondent Union.

03. It has been contended by the appellant that the 2nd

respondent had raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and

when the talks failed before the Conciliation Officer, the Conciliation

Officer has submitted a Failure Report to the appropriate

Government and the appropriate Government has referred the

dispute between the parties to the Labour Court under Section

10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was

numbered as I.D.No.208 of 1994. The appropriate Government has

referred the following disputes:

"Whether the action of the Management in denial to promote S/Sri A.Narsaiah, Sreeramulu, Rajalingu, Ch.Somaiah, Pothula Venkataswamy, A.Narsaiah, Ippa Bapu, Abdul Hafeez, Jam Bhoomaiah, Agidi Banaiah, Madam Rayamallu, Dandu Venkatesham, Ade Rajender, Asspalli Ramachander, Konati Sambaiah, General Mazdoor Cat-I to the post of Shaft Sinking Mazdoor Cat-IV with effect from 1-1-90 and to place them in cadre V with effect from 1-4-90 in violation of cadre scheme recommended by the Central Wage Board for Coal Mining Industries, is illegal and Justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

The Industrial Tribunal vide orders dated 13.03.1997 has

answered the reference in favour of the 2nd respondent and directed

that the members of 2nd respondent were entitled to be promoted

from General Mazdoor Category-I to the post of Shaft Sinking

Mazdoor Category-IV with effect from 01.01.1990 and placed them

in the Cadre-V with effect from 01.04.1990. The counsel for the

appellant had contended that the members of 2nd respondent were

not entitled for such promotion, but the Industrial Tribunal has

erroneously answered the reference in favour of the employees of the

2nd respondent. Challenging the same, the appellants had filed

W.P.No.35265 of 1997 before this Hon'ble Court and the learned

Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the said

writ petition vide orders dated 14.03.2007 without appreciating any

of the contentions raised by the appellant.

04. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended

that the employees in question of the 2nd respondent Union were not

entitled for promotion and the learned Single Judge as well as

Industrial Tribunal have erroneously passed orders in favour of the

2nd respondent members. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed

in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the

Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.208 of 1994 dated 13.03.1997.

05. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent had

contended that the Industrial Tribunal was pleased to pass the I.D.

in favour of the 2nd respondent members way back in 1997 and the

writ petition preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by this

Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 14.03.2007. Though the appellant

had preferred the writ appeal in 2008, there were no interim orders

and all the members of the 2nd respondent Union were promoted

and reaped the benefits of promotions. At this point of time, no

inter-reference is called for. Writ Appeal be dismissed accordingly.

06. This Court, having considered the rival submissions

made by the parties, is of the considered view that the Industrial

Dispute Case in I.D.No.208 of 1994 preferred by the 2nd respondent

was adjudicated in favour of the 2nd respondent vide Order dated

13.03.1997 and at this length of time, the award passed by the

Industrial Dispute has worked out itself and since there were no

interim orders passed in the present writ appeal, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the case at this length of time and

accordingly the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. This order is

being passed in order to give quietus to this long pending litigation

between the parties.

07. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

Date: 18.02.2022 KL