C.P. AGRAWAL ETC. ETC. versus P.O. LABOUR COURT AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 29-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

C.P. AGRAWAL Etc. Etc. 
A 
v. 
P.O. LABOUR COURT AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 29, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAlK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Promotion-From post of Construction Supervisor Grade I to E-1 on 
basis of merit-cum-seniority-Denial of-To those who were considered 
and found unsuitable or did not apply for promotion-Held: not violative C 
of Art. 16-Hence, no interference called for-Constitution of India, 1950 
Art.16. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136. 
Service matters-Interference in-Promotion-Employees contended 
they were illegally not considered for promotion while their juniors were 
promoted-On evidence the said contention found wrong-But explanation 
of Company in respect of promotion of one employee from non-executive 
cadre to post of E-1 not found satisfactory-Held: Promotion of said 
D 
employee having been made 20 long years ago, not annulled. 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Public document-Original or manufactured-Records of 
consideration--By Departmental Promotion Committee-Produced by 
Public Undertaking-Record 13 to 19 years old-Objection raised against F 
such records that they were manufactured ones and not. original-Held: It 
was not possible for a Public Undertaking to manufacture records which 
were 13 to 19 years old-Hence, objection rejected. 
The appellants were illegally not considered for promotion to G 
the post of E-1 from the post of Construction Supervisor Grade I 
under the respondent-Public Undertaking on the basis of merit-
cum-seniority when their juniors were promoted. The appellants, 
therefore, approached the Labour Court which directed the 
respondent-Public Undertaking to promote them to the higher 
grade. The High Court reversed the decision of the Labour Court. H 
109 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal. During 
the pendency of this appeal this Court directed the respondent-
,_ .._ 
Public Undertaking to produce the record of the consideration by 
the Departmental Promotion Committee. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the records 
B produced were not the original records and were manufactured ones 
and as such no reliance could be placed on these records. 
On behalf of the respondent-Public Undertaking it was 
contended that the appellants were duly considered whenever 
promotion fell due and on being considered they were found 
C unsuitable and, therefore, their juniors were promoted; that on some 
occasion the appellants had not applied for promotion and the question 
of their consideration did not arise; and hence there was no 
infringement of the appellants' constitutional right enshrined in 
Article 16 of the Constitution. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD I.I. It is not possible to accept the contention of the 
appellants that the records produced are manufaciured ones and are 
not original. It is not possible for a Public Undertaking to manufacture 
E records which are 13 to 19 years old. [113-H, 114-A) 
1.2. The case of each of the appellants has been duly considered 
whenever they have applied for promotion but they were found 
unsuitable for promotion and as such they have not been promoted. 
On some occasion they have not applied for promotion and, therefore, 
F the question of consideration of their case at that point of time did not 
arise. In the aforesaid premises there is no infraction of Article 16 of 
the Constitution in the matter of promotion to different grades both 
in the non executive and executive cadre. The constitutional rights of 
the appellants for being considered have not been infringed in any 
G manner. Although the explanation of the respondent for the promotion 
of one person from the non-executive cadre to E-1 in the executive 
cadre is not very satisfactory, the said promotion, having been made 
20 long years ago, is not being annulled. Hence, there is no scope for 
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. (114-D, 115-A-CJ 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11360 of 
C.P. AGRAWALv. P.O. LABOURCOURT[PATTANAIK,J.] 
11 I 
1995 Etc. Etc. 
A 
,J .. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.95 of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.J.C. No 1485 of 1991 (R) 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi and M.N. Krishnamani, Gopal Prasad, Ejaz 
B 
Maqbool, J.N. Jha, (Aseem Mehrotra) for B.B. Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee 
and Mrs. Kirti Mishra for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted. 
c 
These app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.