THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management impugn the award passed against them by the Industrial Tribunal, on a reference initiated by the 2nd respondent; Union of workmen. The dispute revolved around a promotion policy, which inter alia contained a stipulation that promotion from skilled workmen to the cadre of Supervisor (Assistant Engineer) will be confined to ITI holders. The Tribunal found that the said stipulation is discriminatory, insofar as the ITI holders and non -ITI holders were integrated into one cadre and were treated similarly throughout their service.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent seeks to sustain the award and the additional respondents 3 to 16, who are ITI holders who were already promoted to the supervisor cadre, support the management; but only insofar as seeking to sustain their status in their promoted post; without disturbance.

(3.) THE Tribunal has elaborately considered the contentions of both the management and the workmen and has also extracted the promotion policy. The stipulation, which leads to promotion to the supervisory cadre, was interfered with as discriminatory, thus answering the reference made as to whether there was denial of promotion to non -ITI skilled workmen, in the affirmative. The findings so rendered, as is indicated in the operative portion, are for the following reasons: The ITI and non -ITI holders were recruited to the same category of skilled workmen and no distinction was sought to be drawn between such different categories and all the workmen were treated equally and seniority too was determined accordingly. The other units of the holding Company did not discriminate between ITI holders and non -ITI holders with respect to promotion to supervisory cadre. The management having accepted the experience in the trade of non -ITI holders as being sufficient, for initial recruitment as skilled workers, there could be no discrimination meted out later.