Yogendra Pal v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Limited & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1978 as a Clerk with Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Nadehi. He is a Law Graduate and also possesses Diploma in Labour Laws. He Post Graduate Sociology Economics. Petitioner’s case that he is handling labour matters, and vide order dated 17.06.1983, he was designated as Legal Assistant the aforesaid establishment. Thereafter, vacancy of Legal-Cum-Personnel Assistant. A constituted Selection Committee interviewed petitioner and the petitioner was selected as Legal Cum Personnel Assistant aforesaid establishment. He was appointed so vide order dated 01.04.1984. It is stated the writ petition the petitioner’s work has been unblemished and he had long experience pertaining to the legal and he had long experience pertaining to the legal and personnel matters establishment. It further stated in the writ petition that a wage board was constituted vide notification dated 17th July, 1985, Known as ‘Third Wage Board relating Sugar Mills’. It is alleged by the petitioners nomenclature Legal Cum Personnel Assistant has been eliminated in notification dated

31.01.1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and a new post of Labour Officer Cum Supervisor Grade- B, is created. Considering the services rendered by petitioner, the General Manager of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Nadehi, made a recommendation

26.07.1992 Administrator/District Magistrate petitioner-Yogendra Pal, Legal Personnel Assistant be designated as Labour Officer Cum Supervisor Grade-B. A recommendation is Annexure-9 the writ petition. The petitioner’s grievance that no decision has taken on recommendation. Hence writ petition was filed before Allahabad High Court in the year 1993 from where it has been received by transfer under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-Kisan Sahkarki Chini Mills Ltd., Nadehi in which regarding the contents of para-2, 3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that no comment are needed on the same. It is further stated the counter affidavit that no post of Labour Officer is provided in the staffing pattern. Regarding the rest of the contents, it is stated that the same are argumentative in nature and the same can be argued at the time of final hearing.

In rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the writ petition.

Copy of notification No. 556 (H.I.)/36-2-115 (HI)-89 Lucknow dated 31.01.1991, is annexed as annexure-6 the writ petition, which shows the Government has accepted the recommendations the Wage Board. Schedule this notification further discloses that a post of Labour Officer (Supervisor Grade B) has been created and qualification and experience required to fill the said is Graduate in Arts/Commerce/Science, with preference law Graduate or/and Diploma Social Work. In column 5 in respect of the entry of the Labour Officer (Supervisor Grade A), Schedule, shows that ten years experience would be required as Labour Officer/ Supervisor Grade B for being promoted the post of Labour Officer (Supervisor Grade A).

There is no dispute between the parties the Wage Board has recommended the creation of the post of Labour Officer/ Supervisor Grade B. There is no dispute also recommendation of the Wage Board is accepted by the Government of India as well as the Government of U.P. As far as the eligibility of the petitioner to aforesaid concerned, recommendation (copy annexure-9 the writ petition) the General Manager establishment supports the case of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have failed to show why the decision is not been taken on the recommendation of the General Manager on the representation petitioner regarding designation petitioner Labour Officer/Supervisor Grade B.