Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. S. Dhavan, J.
L.H.SUGAR FACTORIES AND OIL MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 755 Of 1961
Decided On : 02/22/1961
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - PROMOTION - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - PROMOTION POLICY - RIGHT TO PROMOTION - VICITIMISATION.
Fact of the Case:
Ten workmen were denied promotion to the post of driver-cum-assistant fitter in favor of eleven other workmen who were members of a rival trade union. The aggrieved workmen raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court held that the promotions were made to pamper one association at the cost of the other and that the aggrieved workmen were deprived of promotion because they were members of the Pilibhit Sugar Mill Labour Union.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found that the promotions were not given on merit but to pamper one association at the cost of the other, and that the claims of the ten disputing workmen were ignored and Promotions given to the other ten because they happened to be the members of the Union for which the employers had a soft corner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. 2. Whether the employer had the unfettered right to promote whomsoever they like, and that the plea of victimisation or unfair labour practice is never available to workmen in a matter of promotion. 3. Whether the Labour Court could have given the award which it did.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The government has the power to change its mind even in the same case, provided it acts bona fide and within a reasonable time and there is no statutory bar against such review. 2. A labour tribunal can enquire whether a number of promotions made by the employer amounted to unfair labour practice or victimisation. 3. An employer who is short-sighted enough to view the trade union of his workmen as an opponent may try to weaken it by purchasing the loyalty of some of the workmen by undeserved promotions or setting up a rival union and thus creating disunity in the labour ranks. 4. The Labour Court was justified in holding that the case of the workers had not been rebutted by the employer or even making an adverse inference against it.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected in limine.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the L. H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills Limited, Pilibhit under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of an award made by the Labour Court Bareilly, holding that the petitioner company had wrongfully and unjustifiably deprived ten workmen of promotion to the post of driver-cum-assistant fitter and further declaring these workmen entitled to the same emoluments and increment in their salary and to the same terms of employment which had been given to eleven other workmen who had been preferred in the matter of promotion. All the ten workmen are respondents in the petition, the other respondents being the labour Court, Bareilly, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Workmen of the company represented by the Pilibhit Sugar Mill Labour Union. The facts as alleged in the affidavit supporting the petition are related in the following paragraph. But I would like to make a few comments on this affidavit. It is sworn by a person of the name of Ram Gopal Agarwal who describes himself as a clerk in the employment of the company. He had verified the allegations as true to his personal knowledge, but this is hard to believe. If a person swears an affidavit in a case which does not concern him. it is not enough for him to make the formal verification that he is personally acquainted with the facts deposed to in his affidavit: he must explain how he became acquainted with events and happenings which ordinarily did not appear to concern him. Ram Gopal states that he is a clerk of the company, but he does not state that he was dealing with the matters which lead to the dispute and the award, nor was learned counsel in a position to make this statement on a question from the Court. The official directly responsible for the promotions was either the Chief Engineer Or the Assistant engineer of the Company. There is no affidavit by either of them nor by any official or director or labour officer of the Company. It appears that the petitioner company picked a clerk and sent him here for the purpose of swearing an affidavit without ascertaining that he could swear to the material facts from personal knowledge. This practice among institutions of asking a minor employee to swear the affidavit as a matter of formality must be condemned. This Court has emphasised again and again that the affidavit supporting a petition under Article 226 must be sworn by a person who Can, relate facts from his personal knowledge, It is true that ram Gopal has verified his allegations as true to his knowledge, but the matters referred to in his affidavit do not ordinarily concern a clerk and in is doubtful that his verification is true. The affidavit being worthless, the petition could have been rejected on this ground alone, but I heard learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the importance of some of the questions of law raised by him.
( 2 ) THE allegations are these. The petitioner company owns and operates a sugar factory in pilibhit in which a large number of workmen are employed. The ten workmen who are the respondents in this case were engaged as drivers along with many others. Of these others, eleven, who were also drivers and had worked as assistant fitters during the three previous off seasons, were appointed as driver-cum-assistant fitters on the recommendation, of the Chief Engineer for the off season of 1957. This had the consequence of raising their salaries. The other ten workers (the respondents in this petition) raised a dispute over these promotions which was referred to the Regional Conciliation. Officer of Bareilly. He made an inquiry and submitted his report to government. However, the latter made no reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the dispute did not proceed further. This happened in 1957.
( 3 ) IN August 1958 the dispute flared up again when the eleven workmen were confirmed in their appointments as driver-cum-assistant fitters--in other words, made permanen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
