9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute between two sections of subordinate employees in the office of the Director-General of Ordnance Factories represented by two Unions. Challenge regarding the promotion of Stenographers to the grade of Assistants and the merger of two cadres. Analysis: The judgment involves a dispute between two sections of subordinate employees in the office of the Director-General of Ordnance Factories, represented by two Unions. The Petitioner, an Employees' Association, contends that Stenographers are outside the clerical cadre, with no Rule authorizing their promotion to the grade of Assistants. The Respondents reserved a post of Assistant-in-Charge for Stenographers, leading to protests from the Petitioner. The Respondents proposed to combine the two services by creating a combined seniority list of Clerks and Stenographers, which the Petitioner opposed, citing differences in qualifications and work nature. The Petitioner challenges the decision to merge the cadres and the validity of Stenographers' appointments as Assistants. The preliminary objection raised is whether an unincorporated association like the Petitioner can maintain an application under Article 226. The recognition of the association by the Government under specific rules does not grant it the right to represent its members in a legal proceeding. An unincorporated association lacks legal personality and can only bring legal proceedings in the name of its individual members. Exceptions to this rule exist under special statutes like the Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, but no such provision applies in this case. The judgment emphasizes that even if an association is permitted to bring legal proceedings, it can do so under Article 226 only when its collective rights are affected. In this case, the Court finds that the Petitioner, as an association, does not have standing to challenge the actions of the Respondents. The Court also rules that the Petitioner failed to establish separate cadres for Clerks and Stenographers, and the administrative practices do not hold statutory force. Without proof of a legal right being infringed, the Court cannot interfere under Article 226. Consequently, the Rule is discharged without costs, and the operation of the order is stayed for four weeks from the date of the judgment.
|
