MANAGEMENT OF BROOKE BOND INDIA (P) LTD. versus WORKMEN

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 01-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' . 
• 
• 
... 
' 
A 
MANAGEMENT OF BROOKE BOND INDIA (P) L1D. 
B 
c 
·D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
WORKMEN 
November I, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAM! AND 
P. SATYANARAYANA Ruu, JJ.] 
Industrial Dispute~Promotions by 111anage111ent 
allegedly 
based on 
ri1ala fides and victitnisation-Tribunal's jurisdiction to set aside promo-
tiOns~Tribunal 1vhether can decide 1vho1n 'LO jJron1ote. 
The appellant-concern promo'ted two employees from grade A lo 
grade B. 
One of these promotees M superseded one employee while 
the other D superseded six. 
A dispute 
was taised by the respondents-
workmcn on account of this supersession, and a reference was ma<le to 
the industrial tribunal by the Government of Mysore. 
The case of the 
workmen was that the action of the management was not bona fide and 
\\'as taken to victimise the six employees in disregard of seniority. 
The 
case of the appellant on the other hand was that seniority alone .could 
not be the criterion for promotion and that other factors 1ike merit_. 
personality etc. had to be raken into consideration. The Tribunal came 
to the conclusion that the action of the management \Vas 1nala fide be~ 
cause it took eleven weeks to reply to the query of the workmen asking 
for ·reasons for their supersession. The Tribunal also found 
substaitce 
in the allegations of victimisation on the 
ground that those superseded 
\Vere more or less active members of the union. The Tribunal then came 
to the conclusion that five of the superseded employees \Vere as good as 
those who had been promoted and ordered that they should be promoted 
from grade A to grade B, with effect from the date from \Vhich the other 
two had been promoted. 
The appellants came to this Court by special 
leave against the Tribunal's awJrd and contended : ( 1) On the face of it 
the award could not be sustained for there were only t\vo promotions by 
the management and the Tribunal had ordered the management to pro-
1notc five n1ore persons. The promotions of M could not be assailed at all as 
he was second in seniority. (2) The Tribunal's 
finding that there were 
111ala (ides and victimisation was based on no evidence. 
HELD : (i) Although promotion is a management function it may be 
recognised that there may be occasions 
when a Tribunal may have to 
interfere on grounds of 1nala fides or victimisation. But it is none of the 
Tribunal's functions to consider the merits of various 
employees itself 
and then decide whom to promote or not to promote. The Tribunal can 
only set aside the \\1rongful promotion and ask the management to make 
a fresh promotion. [468 F-H] 
. In the present case 1\I was second in seniority and therefore only D's 
case required 'he consideration of the Tribunal. 
Assuming that D's pro-
n1otion was liable 'to be set aside the Tribunal had no justification for 
promoting five persons in addition to the two promoted by the manaRe~ 
ment. [469 B-C] 
· 
(ii) The management had stated in its reply to the superseded em-
µloyees that it had considered all the relevant factors and had also con-
sidered the cases of all senior emµloyees due for promotion before pro-
moting M and D. 
It was difficult to see how the tribunal could come 
to the conclusion merely from the fact that 
there was some delay in 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
giving the reply to the query as to the reasons that the management ~ad A 
not considered the relative merits of all senior employees before making 
the promotions. There could be no doubt that the findings of the Tribu-
nal that the relative merits were not considered or that there was ma/a 
fides or that there was victimisation were based on no evidence and must 
therefore be set aside. Once that conclusion was reached there was no 
reason for the Tribunal to interfere with the promotions made by the 
management. [470 E-G] 
B 
l 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 541 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated the March 14,. 
:.. 
1963 of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, in LT. No. 13 of 1961. 
M. C. Setalvad, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder 
Narain, for the appellant. 
e 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and Janardan Sharma, for the 
respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J, 
This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial D 
matter. 
The appellant-concern promoted two employees from 
grade A to grade Bon April I, 1959. 
These two emp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.