1. Industrial dispute regarding supersession of senior employees for promotion — claim of mala fides and victimization due to trade union activities. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 281
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
Management of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Their Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 541 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. Janardan Sharma, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, JANARDAN SHARMA, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.V.Gupta
J.B.DADACHAN, JANARDAN SHARMA, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.V.Gupta
Promotion is a management function. Industrial tribunals may interfere only in cases of mala fides or victimisation; however, they cannot substitute their own choice of candidates or increase the number of promotions, but should instead direct management to reconsider the cases.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Law - Promotion - Management Function - Scope of Interference by Tribunal - Promotion is generally a management function and should be left to the discretion of the management. A tribunal may interfere only where it is felt that persons superseded have been so superseded on account of mala fides or victimisation. (Para 4)
(B) Industrial Law - Relief in cases of Mala Fides - If a tribunal finds that promotions are unjustified due to mala fides or victimisation, it is not the function of the tribunal to consider the merits of various employees and decide whom to promote. The proper course is to set aside the promotions and direct the management to consider the cases of superseded employees and decide for itself whom to promote, excluding the person whose promotion was set aside. (Para 4)
(C) Industrial Law - Power of Tribunal to create vacancies - A tribunal cannot impose additional promotions on the management beyond the number of promotions actually made by the management, nor can it make such promotions retrospective if no such vacancies existed on that date. (Para 5)
(D) Industrial Law - Evidence of Mala Fides - A delay in replying to queries regarding reasons for supersession or the provision of general reasons such as merit, personality, and suitability does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis to conclude that promotions were mala fide or the result of victimisation. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Management promoted two employees from one grade to another, superseding several senior employees. Based on a previous award, the management provided reasons for the supersession, citing merit, personality, and suitability. The superseded employees alleged that the action was not bona fide and was intended to victimise them for trade union activities. The industrial tribunal concluded that the management's action was mala fide, primarily citing an 11-week delay in responding to queries and the evasive nature of the replies. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the retrospective promotion of five additional employees.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tribunal's order to promote five additional employees was wrong as only two promotions had been made by the management. It further held that the delay in replying to queries was not a valid ground to establish mala fides and that the reasons given for promotion were not evasive. There was no evidence to support the finding of victimisation based on trade union activities.
Issues: Whether the industrial tribunal has the authority to promote additional employees beyond the vacancies created by management and whether delay in providing reasons for supersession constitutes sufficient evidence of mala fides or victimisation.
Ratio Decidendi: Promotion is a management prerogative. While tribunals can intervene in cases of mala fides or victimisation, they cannot substitute their own judgment to select candidates or increase the number of promotions; they must instead set aside the tainted promotion and direct the management to reconsider. Furthermore, administrative delays in communication do not automatically prove mala fides.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Management asserts merit-based promotions; workmen allege victimization for trade union activities; dispute over tribunal's authority to order additional retrospective promotions. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. Delay in replying to queries does not prove mala fides; merit, personality, and suitability are valid criteria; tribunal cannot impose additional promotions beyond vacancies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Promotion is a management function; tribunals may interfere only upon finding mala fides or victimization, in which case they should set aside promotions rather than select candidates. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — industrial tribunal award set aside — promotions of the employees upheld. (Para 9 )
6. Under what circumstances can an industrial tribunal interfere with management's promotion decisions?
Promotion is generally a management function. A tribunal may interfere only when it is established that the supersession of senior employees was based on mala fides or victimization. (Para 4 )
7. What is the proper course of action for a tribunal if it finds a promotion was made in bad faith?
The tribunal should set aside the unjustified promotions and direct the management to reconsider the cases of superseded employees and decide whom to promote, rather than the tribunal selecting the candidates itself. (Para 4 )
8. Does a delay in providing reasons for supersession necessarily indicate mala fides in promotion?
No, a delay in replying to queries regarding the reasons for supersession is not sufficient ground to conclude that the promotions were made mala fide. (Para 6 )
Judgement
WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. The appellant-concern promoted two employees from grade A to grade B on April 1, 1959. These two employees were Manerikar and Dhume. As a result of this promotion, Manerikar superseded one employee while Dhume superseded six employees. A dispute was raised by the respondents-workmen on account of this supersession. This was based on an earlier award with reference to this very concern by the National Tribunal which provided as follows:-
"All things being equal, seniority shall count for promotion. If the senior person has been overlooked in the question of promotion, he is at liberty to ask the concern for the reason why he has been overlooked, in which case the concern shall give him the reasons, provided that it does not expose the concern or the officer giving reasons, to any civil or criminal proceedings.
It appears that when the supersession became known the management was asked to give the reasons and the management gave the same and said that in making promotions it took into consideration the merit, personality and suitability of the employees. This did not satisfy the employees who were superseded and a dispute was raised on their behalf by the workmen which was referred to the industrial tribunal by the Government of Mysore in these terms :
"Whether the promotion of Sriyuths P. D. Dhume and Y. S. Manerikar, superseding Sriyuths G. N. Kamat, B. V. Kulkarni, H. S. Deshpande, G. R. Balgi and D. N. Naik is justified? If not, to what relief are the affected workmen entitled ?
It may be added that the name of Sri V. R. Kulkarni was added later in the list of persons superseded. The case of the workmen was that the action of the management was not bona fide and was taken to victimise the six employees on account of their trade union activities and that the reasons given for superseding the senior employees were vague and of a general character. The case of the appellant on the other hand was that seniority alone could not be the criterion for making promotion and that other factors like merit, personality, etc., have to be taken into consideration. The appellant asserted that all these facts had been taken into consideration when the two promotions in question were made. It was also asserted that promotions were made after considering the qualities and abilities of the employees concerned. The appellant further denied that there were any mala fides in the matter of these promotions or that the action was taken with a view to victimise those who were superseded.
2. The tribunal recognised that normally the question of promotion was a management function and had to be left mainly to the discretion of the management which had to make a choice from among the employees for promotion. But it was of the view that in a proper case the workmen had a right to demand relief when just claims of senior employees were overlooked by the management. It therefore first considered the question whether this was a case in which the workmen had the right particularly in view of the earlier decision in this very concern to demand that the two promotions made should be scrutinised by the industrial tribunal. It came to the conclusion that the action of the management was mala fide mainly because it took 11 weeks to reply to the query of the workmen asking for reasons for their supersession. It was of the view that the evasive replies and inordinate delay showed that the two promotions were mala fide. The tribunal also seems to have held that the six employees were superseded on the ground that they were more or less active members of the union and because of their trade union activities, though there is no specific finding to that effect. The tribunal further seems to have held that the delay made by the management in giving the reasons when asked to do so showed that the management had not considered the reasons for supersession prior to or at the time the promotio
