TULSIPUR SUGAR CO. LTD. Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by Special leave, is directed against the award, dated November 30, 1965 of the Labour Court (II) at Kanpur. The Labour Court has held that the promotion given by the appellant, to S. Agarwal as Accountant is vitiated by unfair labour practice and victimisation and it has further directed the appellant to promote K.N. Srivastava as Accountant from February 12,1964 and pay him the back wages together with increments.

(2.) K.N. Srivastava jointed the Accounts Department of the appellant on April 14, 1960. S. Agarwal joined service with the appellant on August 1, 1961 and was working in the Accounts Department. On February 1, 1964 M. P. Varma, Senior Assistant Accountant, resigned his post and in his place Agarwal was promoted as Senior Assistant Accountant. On February 12, 1964 V. P, Varma, Accountant, retired and Agarwal was promoted as Accountant. The respondent Union felt that Srivastava had been superseded because of his trade union activities as Joint Secretary of the Labour Union. The Union raised a dispute and the question whether the employers should be required to promote Srivastava to the post of Accountant was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court has held in its award that the conduct of the management in superseding the claims of Srivastava amounted to unfair labour practice and victimisation.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Gokhale, learned councel, raised two contentions (i) that the finding of the Labour Court that the promotion given to Agrawal is vitiated by unfair labour practice and victimisation against Srivastava is erroneous; and (ii) in any event the Labour Court has acted illegally in directing the appellant to promote Srivastava to the post of Accountant. Mr. Gokhale urged that the giving of promotion is essentially a managerial function and he further drew our attention to the fact that the management had categorically stated that they considered the claims of the persons then in employment in their Accounts Department and having regard to their suitability, efficiency and other material factors, promoted Agarwal as Accountant as he had superior qualifications. The counsel also pointed out that according to the management Srivastava, by his conduct, had forfeited the confidence of the employers. In any event, counsel urged that even assuming that the promotion given to Agarwal had to be set aside, the Labour Court had acted without jurisdiction in directing the appellant to promote Srivastava as Accountant from February 12, 1964. The normal direction should have been to direct the management to reconsider the claims of all persons excepting of course of the candidate whose promotion has been set aside.