JUDGMENT

D. A. DESAI, J.:— It is most unfortunate that all those unhealthy and injudicious practices resorted to for unduly delaying the conclusion of civil proceedings have stealthily crept in, for reasons not unknown, in the adjudication of industrial disputes for the resolution of which An informal forum and simple procedure were devised with the avowed object of keeping them free from the dilatory practices of Civil Courts. Times without number this Court, (to quote only two, D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, (1983) 4 SCC 293 and S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, (1983) 4 SCC 214, disapproved the practice of raising frivolous preliminary objections at the instance of the employer to delay and defeat by exhausting the workmen, the outcome of the dispute yet we have to deal with the same situation in this appeal by special leave.

2. The Government of Maharashtra by its order dated Oct. 22, 1975 referred a dispute between Hindustan Lever Ltd. (employer for short) and the workmen employed by them for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra. The schedule, annexed to the order of reference specified the dispute as under :

"All the employees who are acting continuously in higher grades (as per annexure) for more than three months should be confirmed in the respective grades immediately and all the benefits should be given to the concerned employees with retrospective effect had they been confirmed immediately after three months of their continuous acting."

After the workmen governed by the reference filed a statement of claim, M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., the employer, appeared and contested the reference on diverse grounds. A preliminary objection was raised that the reference was incompetent because the dispute raised by the workmen. and referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the expression in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Elaborating the contention, it was submitted that the dispute is not an industrial dispute because if the demand as raised is conceded, it would tantamount to allowing the workmen to decide the strength of the work force required in various grades and it is well settled that determining and deciding the strength of work force requited in any industry is a managerial function. There were other contentions with which we are not concerned in this appeal at this stage.

3. The industrial Tribunal held that whatever camouflage of the language in which the demand is couched, the attempt is to obtain promotion which cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it being a managerial function. The Tribunal in terms held that promotion is the function of the Management and the Industrial Tribunal will have no power and jurisdiction to take away the function of the Management and direct that such and such workmen should be promoted to a particular post. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the dispute was not all industrial dispute within the meaning of the expression and rejected the reference as incompetent. Hence this appeal by special case.

4. Section 10 (1) confers power on the appropriate Government to refer an existing or apprehended industrial dispute, amongst others, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute therefore, which can be referred for adjudication, of necessity, has to be an industrial dispute which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference, and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it.

5. The expression Industrial dispute is defined in S. 2 (k) to mean any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. The question is : whether a demand for confirmation in the promoted post after a lapse of a c