The Labour Court has the authority to interfere in matters of promotion and to declare workmen as permanent based on their work and payment history.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a unit of U. P. State sugar and Cane Development Corporation Ltd. . It is engaged in the manufacture of white crystal sugar by vaccum pan process. The petitioner has assailed the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication case No. 40/1990 which has been enforced by publication on the Notice Board on 15. 10. 2003. No interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner at the time of admission or thereafter. FACTS

( 2 ) BEFORE noting the contentions of the parties before the Labour Court, it may be pointed out here that the Union representing the workmen had not pressed reference No. 2 regarding designation and corresponding pay scale to 28 employees of list kha, hence the dispute survived only in respect of reference No. 1, which is being dealt herewith.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the following two suo motu references were made by the State Government vide Government order No. 1646- 65/36 (1) Suo Motu Reference 2 (57)89 dated 3. 11. 1989: reference No. 1. . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner in respect of reference No. 1 was that persons shown in the list ka are seasonal workmen and are being paid accordingly. They are paid retaining allowance during off season. Whenever they are called for some work during off season they are paid their due wages for working in the off season.

( 5 ) THE case of the workmen was that Standing Orders of Vaccum Pan Sugar Industries notified under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, workmen in Schedule ka are permanent seasonal employees who not only work during the season but also in the off season. Employee mentioned at sl. No. 10 has died and those at si. Nos. 32 to 34 have been made permanent by the employers; that the employers have discriminated the rest of the employees who have not been declared as permanent till date despite the fact that the employers are taking work of permanent nature from them throughout the year and that the concerned workmen have worked for more than 240 days in each of the year as such, the action of the employers of not declaring them permanent amounts to unfar labour practice.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the dispute, employees at Sl. Nos. 7, 8, 10, 14, 20, 24, 31 and 37 either retired from service or have expired. The employees at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34 and 35, namely, S/sri Badri Prasad Kushwaha, Jawahar Sharma, Gulab Kohri, Lal bahadur Khatik, Kedar Nath Sharma, Pradubhna Upadhyay, Vijai Pratap Singh, Jata Shankar lal, Laxmi Shankar, Yogendra Singh, Raj Deo Yadav and Chandra Bhan Singh. were declared permanent by the employers. The Union did not press the case of the employees at sl. Nos. 1,12,28,31 and 39. Thus, the dispute now remains confined only to following 14 employees:s/ sri

1. Prasad Khatik 2. Balwant Koiri 3. Jokhan Kewat 4. Ismail Jolha 5. Indrajit Pandey 6. Santosh Prasad Gupta

( 7 ) YOGRAJ Singh

( 8 ) HARBANSH Yadav

( 9 ) GAYAKURMI

10. Srikant Singh 11. Anant Bhar 12. Mohd. Yusuf 13. Ram Subhag Kewat 14. Hridesh Kumar Srivastava.

Contention of Counsel for the petitioner: 7. The Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award on the following submissions :(a) The Labour Court by the impugned award has declared the 14 employees of list ka as permanent employees of the Corporation entitled to corresponding benefits from the date of the award, which is beyond the powers of Labour Court as such declaration and grant of benefits amount to promotion. The Counsel has vehemently urged that promotion is purely a management function and it is beyond the jurisdictional realm of the Labour Court to grant promotion to the employees. He has placed confidence in the judgement of Honble the Apex Court rendered in Brook Bond India (P) Ltd. , v. their workmen-1966 (12) F. L. R.-42. (b) It is then submitted that case of employees who are senior to the concerned workmen was also liable t