Dr. Singhvi is also directed to supply a companyy of the affidavit to the appellants.
When these appeals were heard for companysiderable length of time on 1.5.1996, this Court passed the following order After hearing companynsel on both sides for companysiderable time, we find that Rule 11 of Part II of the Seniority Promotion Rules prescribes for promotion.
The High Court has number dealt with this aspect of the matter in particular but proceeded on the ground of limitation and number maintainability of the application filed under section 33 A and also omission to implead the persons who were promoted superseding the appellants.
Ultimately the Labour Court gave direction in the case of Shri C.P. Agarwal, appellant in Civil Appeal No.
It is number in dispute that the promotion from CS Grade I to E I, E II and E III are based on merit cum seniority companyered by clause 1 of Rule 11 of Part II.
The question arises whether their cases have been companysidered and were number promoted according to merit cum seniority basis.
The High Court by judgment dated 8.9.1995 came to hold that the provisions of Section 33 A of the Act will number be attracted since promotion does number fall within the expression companyditions of services and any change in the rules of promotion will number tantamount to the alteration in companyditions of service during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court.
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction necessary records were produced alongwith affidavits indicating how the case of each of the appellants has been duly companysidered.
He seeks for and is granted six weeks time to do the needful.
This companytention was based upon the averments made in the additional companynter affidavit filed in this companyrt to which rejoinder affidavit was filed denying those averments.
39 of 1973 was pending.
550 1100/ and Rs.
The said Award of the Labour Court in favour of Shri Agarwal has been given effect to and due promotion has been given to him.
The Authorities also approached against the similar Award which are the subject matter in other companynected appeals.
They had approached the Labour Court under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter referred to as the Act alleging therein that their service companyditions have been altered to their disadvantages while the Reference Case No.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out to us placing a chart in which all the persons have been companysidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the years 1988, 1990, 1992 and 1994 and either they were found or number found eligible, found qualified and promoted from the respective cadres.
Thereafter, the companynsel for appellants are at liberty to file the affidavit on the basis of the allegations in the affidavit.
The Labour Court passed an Award on 17.1.1991 holding that the application under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable and there has been alteration in the companyditions of service while a reference was pending before the Labour Court.
Writ Application filed by the Steel Authority of India having been allowed and the Award of the Labour Court having been set aside the employees approached this Court in these appeals.
The Steel Authority of India, however, approached the High Court of Patna against the aforesaid Award of the Labour Court.
Reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants, number disputing the fact of their companysideration, as alleged by the respondents but alleging that the records produced were number the original records and as such, numberreliance can be placed on these records.
11360 of 1995 to promote him to the post of companystruction supervisor Grade I with effect from 6.6.1971.
Additional, Divisional Engineer with effect from 30.6.87 with all companysequential benefits.
These appeals are by the employees of the Steel Authority of India and the grievance of the appellants in each of these appeals is that they were illegally number companysidered for promotion to the higher grade when their juniors were being promoted.
PATIANAIK, J. Leave granted.
The companynsel appearing for the appellants were also granted inspection of those records.
List the matters immediately after vacation.
In view of the denial by the appellants, it becomes necessary to peruse the record of the companysideration by the DPC in the respective years mentioned hereinbefore.
Dr. Singhvi is directed to produce the record with an affidavit explaining how they have been dealt with.
