Reasons given by management for ex-parte order seems to be proper.

D. Murugesan, J.

The management of Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Thiruvalangadu, Chengai-Anna District, is the writ petitioner. The second respondent is the Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Employees Union, Thiruvalangadu, Chengai-Anna District, represented by its Secretary.

The writ petitioner is referred to as the management and the second respondent is referred to as the Union, in this order.

The Union submitted a charter of demands on 21.8.1989 to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) listing out 18 demands. One of the demands was that Promotion Policy should be formulated and the petitioner/management should stop giving promotions in its discretion. The said demand was made on the ground that about 395 workers were appointed as daily rated by the management during the year 1985 and they were appointed without reference to the employment exchange. There were 300 posts vacant, for which the members of the Union could be promoted as per the seniority following the qualifications contained in second wage board. The management for the purpose of promotion insisted additional qualifications. Such additional qualifications for the purpose of promotion should not be insisted upon in the case of promotion of workers who were appointed without reference to minimum educational qualification. Hence, the Union demanded that the promotion should be made without insisting any additional educational qualifications the daily rated workers.

The management filed a reply on 30.1.1990 to the said demand. According to the management, there were about 90 vacancies for 90 Mazdoor posts which could be filled up from among CLR workers. By the time the demand was so made, the Commissioner of Sugars issued circulars prescribing minimum qualifications for each posts and the promotions could be made only on the basis of educational qualification. The Union was not justified in seeking promotion of the workers to the higher posts, even though they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications as prescribed in the said circulars. It was also contended that the management is a Co-operative Sector functioning under the control of the Commissioner of Sugar and the Government of Tamil Nadu contributed Rs. 300 lakhs towards share capital of the management mills and therefore, the management is bound to carry out the instructions issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time-to-time in the matter of recruitment, promotion and other matters pertaining to personnel. The circular issued by the Commissioner of Sugar prescribed educational qualifications for each category of post, particularly for the post of Turner Grade I, the educational qualification was pass in 8th standard and also a certificate in I.T.I. and also a National Grade Certificate for Turner with 6 years experience. For the post of Switch Board Attendant, the educational qualification prescribed was pass in 8th standard and a certificate in wireman with 2 years experience in Sugar Mills, with an added qualification of I.T.I. or diploma in Electrical. Hence the management prayed for rejection of the claim by the union.Based upon the demand made by the Union and the reply offered by the management, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) took up the dispute for conciliation and submitted a Conciliation failure report dated 22.9.1990 to the Government. The Government in G.O. (ID) No. 782 dated 24.12.1990 referred the dispute for adjudication in respect of the demand No. 15 and the reference is as follows :

"Whether the demand of the workmen to frame promotion policy containing the guidelines for promotion and educational qualifications is justified. If so to determine the basis on which the promotion would be given."

The dispute was taken up in I.D. No. 9 of 1991 by the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras. A summon was sent to the management for appearance on 21.2.1991. The said summon was acknowledged by th