(1.) One C. Subramanyam, who was a junior salesman in the service of the Brooke Bond India Limited, was promoted by the Management as Controller. The workmen of the Brooke Bond India Limited, Visakhapatnam branch, raised a dispute that the promotion was improper as it was made overlooking the claims of several senior salesmen with merit and ability. The Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the matter as an Industrial dispute under Sec 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad The reference was on the following questions:
(2.) According to the claim filed before the Tribunal by the Secretary of the Visakhapatnam Union, C. Subramanyam was a Junior salesman at Vijayawada. He was transferred to Visakhapatnam branch as a salesman on special duty. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of the Controller, thereby superseding several senior and competent salesmen only in the Visakhapatnam branch but also Vijayawada Branch. It was maintained that one of the senior salesmen of the Visakhapatnam branch with requisite qualifications alone should have been promoted as Controller and that the promotion of Subramanyam was unjustified and illegal. A direction was also sought from the Industrial Tribunal that the post of the Controller should, in future, be filled up by senior salesmen having no adverse record and that Subramanyam should be reverted back to the post of salesman.
(3.) In their counter, the management contended that the order of reference was illegal and void and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. The petition of the reference, which related to fixation of norms for promotion, was beyond the scope of the Tribunal. Fixing the guidelines for promotion is the function of the management and the industrial Court cannot interfere with that privilege of the management unless mala fides are alleged and proved. Further, there was an agreement dated 24th of January, 1962 between the company, which is spread all over the width and breadth of India, and the All India Brooke Bond Employees Federation. This was recognised by the Supreme Court in one of its decisions According to the agreement, any disputes relating to the matters mentioned in Annexure A thereto can be raised only by the All India Federation, while those covered by Annexure B can be raised by any local union. There was a subsequent agreement dated 24th of September 1965 between the same parties, whereby it was agreed that individual disputes relating to matters coming under Annexure A of the earlier agreement were transferred to Annexure B which enabled the local unions to raise industrial dispute if it related to promotion of an individual workman only. The present dispute raised by the Visakhapatnam Union, however, endeavoured to espouse the cause of its members as a whole claiming promotion to them This is clearly in contravention of the agreements between the parties. It was also alleged in the counter of the management that the salesmen, who were involved in the dispute, were workmen as defined in Sec 2 (s) of the Act and there was no valid industrial dispute that could be raised with regard to non-workmen. On the merits it was pointed out by the management that the post of Controller required a high degree of leadership and supervisory qualities. The management was of the opinion that Subrahmanyam was the fit for person the post. While promoting him to the post of Controller the management followed the directions of the National Industrial Tribunal in its award dated 9th June, 1959 as well as the Supreme Court in its decisions relating to the relations between the company and its employees.